Are randomised controlled trials involving adenotonsillectomy well reported?

Ifeacho, Sonna; Ajayi, Olakunle V; Hannan, S. Alam

doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2011.04.014

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover the methodological quality is higher in our study, only appear in this review in 45.9% the primary endpoint, and sample size calculation in 39.2%, masked randomization in 29.7%, blind in 12.2%, and "intentionto-treat" in 27%. Ifeacho et al [32] observed lower rates than ours in relation to the appearance of CT in the title (40%), description of the design (12%), sample size (20%) and random assignment (32%). Moreover their study obtained less frequent results regarding the type of masking (24%), funding-sponsors (28%) and statistical methods (22%).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

Methodological and Ethical Quality Checklist Assessment in Issues of Annals of Family Medicine Clinical Trials (2010-2013)

Garcia¹,

Grima²

2016

Fam Med Med Sci Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

Methodological and Ethical Quality Checklist Assessment in Issues of Annals of Family Medicine Clinical Trials (2010-2013)

Garcia¹,

Grima²

2016

Fam Med Med Sci Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The adherence rate in the present study (59.0%), reflects the dearth of improvement in RCT reporting in ORL-HNS literature, despite multiple important updates on CONSORT guidelines since its first publication. Ifeacho et al found that RCTs relating to adenotonsillectomy in ORL-HNS had substandard quality of reporting with 51-60% adherence to CONSORT using the 2010 checklist [ 7 ]. Carlton et al, by using the same checklist, evaluated 38 RCTs on surgical procedures in head and neck oncology surgery and found a mean checklist score of 45.4% [ 8 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in otolaryngology: Review of adherence to the CONSORT statement

Huang

Traore

Ibrahim

et al. 2018

Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRandomized controlled trials are the gold standard in medical and surgical research to assess the efficacy of therapeutic interventions. The reporting of these trials should be of high quality to allow readers’ appropriate interpretation and application.MethodsThe objectives of our study were to assess the extent to which the recent Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery (ORL-HNS) randomized control trials in the top nine journals and in the top Canadian journal comply with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, and to identify the CONSORT items most in need of improvement. Based on the impact factor and circulation number of 2014, the top nine Otolaryngology journals and the top Canadian Otolaryngology journal were selected and were searched to identify RCTs published in English and between 2010 and 2014. Two authors independently reviewed and extracted data using a standardized data extraction form constructed with the help of a medical librarian. Our outcome was to assess the adherence of articles reporting to the CONSORT items. Descriptive statistics were used.ResultsOne hundred and eighty-two Otolaryngologic RCTs were identified in the top nine international journals and in the top Canadian journal. The inter-rater reliability between two raters was 0.32. The extent of adherence to CONSORT Statement ranged from 25 to 93.5% with a mean of 59.0% and a median of 59.4%. Only 6.5% of RCTs described the individual responsible for enrolling and assigning subjects and method of randomization; 32.4% reported the estimated effect size and precision; 40.6% reported a sample size calculation and 32.4% mentioned external validity or implications of the findings.ConclusionFindings revealed that the reporting of RCTs in the top nine ORL-HNS journals and in the top Canadian ORL-HNS journal is suboptimal. The quality of reporting can be improved by addressing the three CONSORT items found most deficient in this study namely, sample size calculations, estimated effect size and precision, and external validity.

show abstract

Reporting of Clinical Trial Interventions Published in Leading Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Journals

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives/HypothesisRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) play a crucial role in advancing patient care within otolaryngology–head and neck surgery (OTL‐HNS), yet studies have shown the reporting of these trials needs improvement. Here, we evaluate the completeness of intervention reporting of RCTs in OTL‐HNS and evaluate whether the publication of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist has influenced intervention reporting.Study DesignRetrospective Cross‐Sectional Analysis.MethodsWe searched PubMed for RCTs published in top OTL‐HNS journals in two cohorts, one before the release of the TIDieR and one afterward. A sample of 300 RCTs was randomly selected and screened for inclusion. Once the dataset was finalized, we extracted trial characteristics and assessed each trial's adherence to the TIDieR checklist. We then used descriptive characteristics, a generalized estimated equation, time‐series analysis, and a two‐sample t test to analyze our data.ResultsAfter screening was completed, 173 RCTs were included in our analysis. Of these RCTs, 103 (59.5%) showed <60% adherence to the TIDieR checklist. We found a slight increase in adherence to TIDieR items after the checklist was released, although this was not statistically significant (P = .91). In addition, we found that trials with a crossover study design or multiple interventions and those that provided a Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials statement were associated with greater adherence to the TIDieR checklist.ConclusionsThe majority of OTL‐HNS RCTs included in our analysis showed suboptimal reporting factors related to the TIDieR checklist. Requiring a TIDieR statement and automating the journal requirements process for all OTL‐HNS clinical trials would be a worthwhile, efficient approach to improving research quality and ultimately patient care within OTL‐HNS.Level of EvidenceNA Laryngoscope, 130:E507–E514, 2020

show abstract

Are randomised controlled trials involving adenotonsillectomy well reported?

Cited by 3 publications

References 39 publications

Methodological and Ethical Quality Checklist Assessment in Issues of Annals of Family Medicine Clinical Trials (2010-2013)

Methodological and Ethical Quality Checklist Assessment in Issues of Annals of Family Medicine Clinical Trials (2010-2013)

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in otolaryngology: Review of adherence to the CONSORT statement

Reporting of Clinical Trial Interventions Published in Leading Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About