Registration and publication of emergency and elective randomised controlled trials in surgery: a cohort study from trial registries

Abstract

ObjectivesEmergency surgical practice constitutes 50% of the workload for surgeons, but there is a lack of high quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in emergency surgery. This study aims to establish the differences between the registration, completion and publication of emergency and elective surgical trials.DesignThe clinicaltrials.gov and ISRCTN.com trials registry databases were searched for RCTs between 12 July 2010 and 12 July 2012 using the keyword ‘surgery’. Publications were systematically searched for in Pubmed, MEDLINE and EMBASE.ParticipantsResults with no surgical interventions were excluded. The remaining results were manually categorised into ‘emergency’ or ‘elective’ and ‘surgical’ or ‘adjunct’ by two reviewers.Primary outcome measuresNumber of RCTs registered in emergency versus elective surgery.Secondary outcome measuresNumber of RCTs published in emergency versus elective surgery; reasons why trials remain unpublished; funding, sponsorship and impact of published articles; number of adjunct trials registered in emergency and elective surgery.Results2700 randomised trials were registered. 1173 trials were on a surgical population and of these, 414 trials were studying surgery. Only 9.4% (39/414) of surgical trials were in emergency surgery. The proportion of trials successfully published did not significantly differ between emergency and elective surgery (0.46 vs 0.52; mean difference (MD) −0.06, 95% CI −0.24 to 0.12). Unpublished emergency surgical trials were statistically equally likely to be terminated early compared with elective trials (0.33 vs 0.16; MD −0.18, 95% CI −0.06 to 0.41). Low accrual accounted for a similar majority in both groups (0.43 vs 0.46; MD −0.04, 95% CI −0.48 to 0.41). Unpublished trials in both groups were statistically equally likely to still be planning publication (0.52 vs 0.71; MD −0.18, 95% CI −0.43 to 0.07).ConclusionFewer RCTs are registered in emergency than elective surgery. Once trials are registered both groups are equally likely to be published.

The current status of clinical trials in emergency gastrointestinal surgery: A systematic analysis of contemporary clinical trials

“…When comparing the population affected by emergency surgical conditions, and the evidence base to support interventions to the number affected and volume-based research within elective surgery there is a large disparity. Our evidence is supported by Morley et al 19 which identified between 2010 and 2012 only 39 out of 414 trials addressing surgery were aimed at emergency surgery. Their study showed that both…”

“…This would also make it simpler for authors to both recruit and register trials globally. However, a recent study suggests that 46% of EGS trials are published 19 . We recognise that the findings of our study may age, if significant changes are made to encourage future emergency surgery research, however it will provide a useful benchmark progress in this field.…”

Choice of anaesthetic in emergency operations: a protocol for a scoping review

“…However, if not otherwise stated, any description that would indicate an emergency repair will be included, for example, strangulated, non-reducible, obstructed. If not otherwise definable by the above, emergency procedures will be defined as unplanned admissions where it is not possible to discharge the patient home before their operation 1…”

“…Elective surgery accounts for the vast majority of research effort and is now generally considered a safe intervention 1. Patients undergoing emergency surgery have a significantly higher risk of morbidity and mortality compared with their elective counterparts 2 3.…”

“…Patients undergoing emergency surgery have a significantly higher risk of morbidity and mortality compared with their elective counterparts 2 3. Despite this, the evidence to support decision-making in emergency surgery is lacking 1. Well-conducted research of interventions in emergency surgery have the potential to yield large improvements in these inferior outcomes.…”