Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Division of Surgery, Head and Neck, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK.
Br J Surg. 2015 Aug;102(9):1037-47. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9808. Epub 2015 Jun 3.
Surgical interventions are complex, with multiple components that require consideration in trial reporting. This review examines the reporting of details of surgical interventions in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) within the context of explanatory and pragmatic study designs.
Systematic searches identified RCTs of surgical interventions published in 2010 and 2011. Included studies were categorized as predominantly explanatory or pragmatic. The extent of intervention details in the reports were compared with the CONSORT statement for reporting trials of non-pharmacological treatments (CONSORT-NPT). CONSORT-NPT recommends reporting the descriptions of surgical interventions, whether they were standardized and adhered to (items 4a, 4b and 4c). Reporting of the context of intervention delivery (items 3 and 15) and operator expertise (item 15) were assessed.
Of 4541 abstracts and 131 full-text articles, 80 were included (of which 39 were classified as predominantly pragmatic), reporting 160 interventions. Descriptions of 129 interventions (80.6 per cent) were provided. Standardization was mentioned for 47 (29.4 per cent) of the 160 interventions, and 22 articles (28 per cent) reported measurement of adherence to at least one aspect of the intervention. Seventy-one papers (89 per cent) provided some information about context. For one-third of interventions (55, 34.4 per cent), some data were provided regarding the expertise of personnel involved. Reporting standards were similar in trials classified as pragmatic or explanatory.
The lack of detail in trial reports about surgical interventions creates difficulties in understanding which operations were actually evaluated. Methods for designing and reporting surgical interventions in RCTs, contributing to the quality of the overall study design, are required. This should allow better implementation of trial results into practice.
手术干预较为复杂,有多个部分需要在试验报告中考虑。本综述考察了在解释性和实用性研究设计背景下,随机临床试验(RCT)中手术干预细节的报告情况。
系统检索了 2010 年和 2011 年发表的外科干预 RCT。纳入的研究分为主要解释性和实用性。报告中的干预细节程度与报告非药物治疗 RCT 的 CONSORT 声明(CONSORT-NPT)进行了比较(CONSORT-NPT 建议报告手术干预的描述,无论其是否标准化和遵守[项目 4a、4b 和 4c])。评估了干预交付背景(项目 3 和 15)和操作人员专业知识(项目 15)的报告情况。
在 4541 篇摘要和 131 篇全文文章中,纳入了 80 篇(其中 39 篇被归类为主要实用性),报告了 160 项干预措施。129 项干预措施(80.6%)的描述得到了提供。提及了 160 项干预措施中的 47 项(29.4%)的标准化情况,22 篇文章(28%)报告了对干预措施至少一个方面的遵守程度进行了测量。71 篇论文(89%)提供了一些有关背景的信息。对于三分之一的干预措施(55 项,34.4%),提供了有关涉及人员专业知识的一些数据。在被归类为实用性或解释性的试验中,报告标准相似。
试验报告中关于外科干预的细节不足,使得难以理解实际评估了哪些手术。需要制定和报告 RCT 中的外科干预措施,以提高整体研究设计的质量。这将有助于将试验结果更好地应用于实践。