Randomized controlled trials in pediatric surgery: could we do better? Peritoneal drainage or laparotomy for neonatal bowel perforation? A randomized controlled trial. Abstracts of randomized controlled trials presented at the society for pediatric research meeting: an example of publication bias. CONSORT adoption and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: a systematic analysis in two dermatology journals. Laparotomy versus peritoneal drainage for necrotizing enterocolitis and perforation. A prospective randomized study comparing retroperitoneal drainage with no drainage and no peritonization following radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for invasive cervical cancer. Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general endocrinology literature. Reporting randomised clinical trials of analgesics after traumatic or orthopaedic surgery is inadequate: a systematic review. Tailoring systematic reviews to meet critical priorities in maternal health in the intrapartum period. Randomized study of cefepime versus ceftazidime plus amikacin in patients with solid tumors treated with high dose chemotherapy (HDC) and peripheral blood stem cell support (PBSCS) with febrile neutropenia. Randomised comparison of routine versus highly selective use of Doppler ultrasound in low risk pregnancies.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are accepted as the gold standard for assessing the effectiveness of clinical interventions but are rarely reported in pediatric surgery. Have RCTs submitted to the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons (BAPS) Annual Congress during the last 5 years been adequately designed and large enough to produce a valid result?
                Abstracts accepted by the Annual BAPS Congress meetings between 1996 and 2000 were examined in collaboration with a senior health services researcher. The quality of the design, methodology, statistical analysis and conclusions, and the adequacy of the sample size were assessed for all identifiable clinical RCTs.
                From 760 accepted abstracts, there were only 9 RCTs (1%) of clinical interventions. In only 4 trials was the relevant primary end-point specified at the outset of the study, and none documented the method of randomization. Only one abstract mentioned blinding with respect to the intervention or outcome measure. Sample sizes were inadequate to detect even large clinical differences. To date, only one of these RCTs has been published in an English-language, peer-reviewed journal.
                Clear guidelines exist for the conduct of RCTs, yet compliance with these standards was rarely documented in abstracts of pediatric surgical RCTs presented at BAPS. Sample sizes were inadequate. RCTs in pediatric surgery are difficult to perform, but the specialty would benefit from well-designed, carefully conducted, multicentre, clinical RCTs to advance evidence-based practice.
                Copyright 2003, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. To determine whether primary peritoneal drainage improves survival and outcome of extremely low birth weight (ELBW) infants with intestinal perforation.
                Optimal surgical management of ELBW infants with intestinal perforation is unknown.
                An international multicenter randomized controlled trial was performed between 2002 and 2006. Inclusion criteria were birthweight >or=1000 g and pneumoperitoneum on x-ray (necrotizing enterocolitis or isolated perforation). Patients were randomized to peritoneal drain or laparotomy, minimizing differences in weight, gestation, ventilation, inotropes, platelets, country, and on-site surgical facilities. Patients randomized to drain were allowed to have a delayed laparotomy after at least 12 hours of no clinical improvement.
                Sixty-nine patients were randomized (35 drain, 34 laparotomy); 1 subsequently withdrew consent. Six-month survival was 18/35 (51.4%) with a drain and 21/33 (63.6%) with laparotomy (P = 0.3; difference 12% 95% CI, -11, 34%). Cox regression analysis showed no significant difference between groups (hazard ratio for primary drain 1.6; P = 0.3; 95% CI, 0.7-3.4). Delayed laparotomy was performed in 26/35 (74%) patients after a median of 2.5 days (range, 0.4-21) and did not improve 6-month survival compared with primary laparotomy (relative risk of mortality 1.4; P = 0.4; 95% CI, 0.6-3.4). Drain was effective as a definitive treatment in only 4/35 (11%) surviving neonates, the rest either had a delayed laparotomy or died.
                Seventy-four percent of neonates treated with primary peritoneal drainage required delayed laparotomy. There were no significant differences in outcomes between the 2 randomization groups. Primary peritoneal drainage is ineffective as either a temporising measure or definitive treatment. If a drain is inserted, a timely "rescue" laparotomy should be considered. Trial registration number ISRCTN18282954; http://isrctn.org/ Publication bias toward studies that favor new therapies has been known to occur for the past 40 years, yet its implications are not well studied in child health. The increased interest in meta-analyses has highlighted the need to identify the totality of evidence when addressing treatment questions.
                To measure the percentage of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) presented at a major pediatric scientific meeting that were subsequently published as full-length articles, to investigate factors associated with publication, and to describe the variables that change from abstract to manuscript form.
                The scientific proceedings from the Society for Pediatric Research were hand searched for RCTs (1992-1995). Subsequent publication was ascertained through a search of various electronic databases. Quality of abstracts and manuscripts was measured, and data were extracted using a structured form.
                A total of 264 (59.1%) of 447 abstracts were subsequently published. Almost 64% of RCTs that were subsequently published favored new therapy compared with 43.5% of studies that were never published (P<.001). Mean effect size for published vs unpublished RCTs was 0.74 vs 0.05 (P<.001). Median sample size was larger in published (n = 45) vs unpublished (n = 34) RCTs (P =.02). Quality was significantly lower for abstracts vs published RCTs (P<.001). For 5% of abstracts that were subsequently published, the conclusion regarding treatment efficacy changed.
                Publication bias is a serious threat to assessing the effectiveness of interventions in child health, as little more than half of RCTs presented at a major scientific meeting are subsequently published. There is a need to institute an international registry of RCTs in children so that the totality of evidence can be accessed when assessing treatment effectiveness. CONSORT (Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials) guidelines were constructed to ensure optimal reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
                To determine the effect of the adoption of CONSORT on the reporting quality of RCTs, we performed a systematic evaluation of RCTs published in two dermatology journals pre- and post-CONSORT adoption.
                The journals selected for the study were the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology and the British Journal of Dermatology. We selected RCTs published in 1997 and 2006 using both Medline and hand searching. The following critical CONSORT criteria were recorded: sample size, type of disease studied, type of control, single-centre or multicentre study, type of funding, blinding, methods and type of randomization, definition of a primary endpoint, justification for sample size selection and power calculation, population for analysis, and adequacy of group comparison. A multivariable analysis was conducted to determine factors associated with optimal reporting quality.
                In total, 98 studies were included. Improvement in reporting quality was evident for the specification of the randomization method (20% in 1997 vs. 45% in 2006, P < 0.01) and for the justification of sample size (22% in 1997 vs. 43% in 2006, P = 0.027). The percentage of studies with optimal reporting quality increased from 11% in 1997 to 28% in 2006 (P = 0.03). Factors significantly associated with a good methodological quality were pharmaceutical industry funding and publication in 2006 vs. 1997.
                There is a need to improve the reporting quality of RCTs published in dermatology journals. Perforated necrotizing enterocolitis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in premature infants, and the optimal treatment is uncertain. We designed this multicenter randomized trial to compare outcomes of primary peritoneal drainage with laparotomy and bowel resection in preterm infants with perforated necrotizing enterocolitis.
                We randomly assigned 117 preterm infants (delivered before 34 weeks of gestation) with birth weights less than 1500 g and perforated necrotizing enterocolitis at 15 pediatric centers to undergo primary peritoneal drainage or laparotomy with bowel resection. Postoperative care was standardized. The primary outcome was survival at 90 days postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included dependence on parenteral nutrition 90 days postoperatively and length of hospital stay.
                At 90 days postoperatively, 19 of 55 infants assigned to primary peritoneal drainage had died (34.5 percent), as compared with 22 of 62 infants assigned to laparotomy (35.5 percent, P=0.92). The percentages of infants who depended on total parenteral nutrition were 17 of 36 (47.2 percent) in the peritoneal-drainage group and 16 of 40 (40.0 percent) in the laparotomy group (P=0.53). The mean (+/-SD) length of hospitalization for the 76 infants who were alive 90 days after operation was similar in the primary peritoneal-drainage and laparotomy groups (126+/-58 days and 116+/-56 days, respectively; P=0.43). Subgroup analyses stratified according to the presence or absence of radiographic evidence of extensive necrotizing enterocolitis (pneumatosis intestinalis), gestational age of less than 25 weeks, and serum pH less than 7.30 at presentation showed no significant advantage of either treatment in any group.
                The type of operation performed for perforated necrotizing enterocolitis does not influence survival or other clinically important early outcomes in preterm infants. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00252681.).
                Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society. To evaluate the postoperative morbidity and lymphocyst formation in invasive cervical cancer patients undergoing radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy (RHPL) with no drainage and no peritonization compared with retroperitoneal drainage and peritonization.
                Between July 1999 and May 2000, 100 patients with stage IA-IIA cervical cancer undergoing RHPL in Chiang Mai University Hospital were prospectively randomized to receive either no peritonization and no drainage (Group A = 48 cases) or retroperitoneal drainage and peritonization (Group B = 52 cases). Perioperative data and morbidity were recorded. Transabdominal and transvaginal sonography were performed at 4, 8 and 12 weeks postoperatively to detect lymphocyst formation.
                Both groups were similar regarding age, size and gross appearance of tumor, tumor histology and stage. There was no difference between groups in respect of operative time, need for blood transfusion, intraoperative complications, hospital stay, number of nodes removed, nodal metastases, and need for adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy. Asymptomatic lymphocysts were sonographically detected at 4, 8 and 12 weeks postoperatively in 3 (6.8%), 2 (4.6%), and 3 (7.7%) of 44, 43, and 39 patients, respectively in Group A, whereas none was found in Group B (P = 0.2). No significant difference was found in term of postoperative morbidity in the two groups.
                Routine retroperitoneal drainage and peritonization after RHPL for invasive cervical cancer can be safely omitted. The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is poor in general medicine and several areas of specialization but unknown in endocrinology.
                Our aim was to assess the reporting quality of RCTs in general endocrinology. A secondary objective was to identify predictors for better reporting quality.
                We systematically reviewed RCTs published in three general endocrinology journals between January 2005 and December 2006.
                We included parallel-design RCTs that addressed a question of treatment or prevention. Article selection and data abstraction were conducted by two reviewers independently, and disagreements were resolved by consensus.
                There were two main outcomes: 1) a 15-point overall reporting quality score (OQS) based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT); and 2) a 3-point key score, based on allocation concealment, blinding, and use of intention-to-treat analysis.
                Eighty nine RCTs were included. The median OQS was 10 (interquartile range = 2). Allocation concealment, blinding, and analysis by intention to treat were reported in 10, 20, and 16 of the 89 RCTs, respectively. A multivariable regression analysis showed that complete industrial funding [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.014; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.010-1.018], journal of publication (IRR = 1.068; 95% CI, 1.007-1.132), and sample size (IRR = 1.048; 95% CI, 1.026-1.070) were significantly associated with a slightly better OQS.
                The quality of RCT reporting in general endocrine literature is suboptimal. We discuss our results, highlight the areas where improvements are needed, and provide some recommendations. Several randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of analgesics in postoperative pain after traumatic or orthopaedic surgery (TOS) have been published, but no studies have assessed the quality of these reports. We aimed to examine the quality of reporting RCTs on analgesics for postoperative pain after TOS.
                Reports of RCTs assessing analgesics in postoperative pain after TOS were systematically searched from electronic databases. The quality of reports was assessed using the CONSORT checklist (scoring range from 0 to 22). The quality was considered poor when scoring was 12 or lesser. The publication year and the impact factor of journals were recorded.
                A total of 92 reports of RCTs were identified and 69 (75%) scored 12 or lesser in CONSORT checklist (range 5-17). The mean (SD) CONSORT score of all reports was 10.6 (2.7). Missing CONSORT items included primary and secondary outcome measures (11%), the specific objectives and hypothesis definition (12%), the sample size calculation (12%), the dates defining the periods of recruitment (12%), the discussion of external validity of findings (14%), the allocation sequence generation (24%), and the interpretation of potential bias or imprecision of results (25%). There was a little improvement in CONSORT scores over time (r = 0.62; p < 0.001) and with impact factor of journals (r = 0.30; p < 0.001).
                Quality of reporting RCTs on analgesics after TOS is poor. Reporting of those RCTs should be improved according to methodological standard checklists in the next years. Health care practitioners and researchers commonly call for greater reliance on evidence as a means to achieve improvement in quality of care. Systematic reviews provide a means to accelerate the use of evidence-based clinical interventions and public health practices. The extent to which these time- and resource-intensive systematic reviews currently address critical maternal health priorities in the intrapartum period is unclear. This analysis summarises key maternal health and research priorities, maps these priorities to existing reviews, identifies gaps in the literature that can be addressed with systematic reviews, and highlights key methodological concerns in conducting systematic reviews. The analysis draws on published data on maternal morbidities and an overview of 108 systematic reviews in Medline in the past 5 years using the MeSH terms 'Delivery, Obstetric,' to draw the links between health priorities, research priorities, existing evidence and missing evidence. Key causes of morbidity during labour and delivery in the United States include haemorrhage, pre-eclampsia and eclampsia, obstetric trauma and infection. Analyses of maternal morbidity and mortality suggest that key concerns include racial and ethnic disparities in health outcomes and the prevention of adverse events. Systematic reviews, however, generally tend to focus on the reduction of harms associated with interventions, are frequently limited to randomised designs, and do not address issues of health disparities. The results suggest that advances in evidence-based care in maternal health require that systematic reviews address issues of prevention of adverse events, include a larger variety of study designs when necessary and pay closer attention to health disparities. This randomized clinical trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with cefepime for patients with solid tumors treated with high dose chemotherapy (HDC) and peripheral blood stem cell support (PBSCS) with febrile neutropenia.
                Patients with solid tumors treated with HDC and PBSCS, that developed fever and neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count < 500 cells/microL) were eligible, and randomly assigned to receive ceftazidime plus amikacin or cefepime.
                Fifty-one episodes were randomized, and all were evaluable (27 received ceftazidime plus amikacin arm, and 24 cefepime). Major efficacy endpoints did not show significant differences, with success rates of 44.4% and 54.2% (p = 0.481) for the combination arm and the monotherapy arm, respectively. The proportion of patients that became afebrile in the first 24 hours was significantly higher in the cefepime group (41.7% vs 11.1%, respectively; p = 0.012). However, due to its premature closure and small sample size, this study lacks the adequate power to definitely address this question.
                Cefepime monotherapy appeared to have an equivalent efficacy and safety as empiric treatment in febrile neutropenia episodes in a highrisk population compared with ceftazidime and amikacin. Nevertheless, this study is not adequately powered to answer this question. Given the small number of patients randomized and the single-center nature of this study, these results must be cautiously interpreted. To help answer the question: should Doppler ultrasound of the umbilical circulation be made available to all pregnant women as part of their routine antenatal care?
                A randomised trial.
                St James's University Hospital, Leeds.
                2025 low risk primigravid women.
                Obstetric intervention rates and short term neonatal morbidity.
                The incidence of abnormal Doppler was low (1.7%) with complete absence of end diastolic flow in only 0.3% of cases. No significant differences could be demonstrated between control and study women in any of the outcomes measured.
                This study did not demonstrate any benefit or harm from Doppler ultrasound as a routine screening test for all low risk women, whereas our previous studies have suggested that it is useful in high risk pregnancies. Any marginal returns on extending access to Doppler ultrasound from high risk to all women must be small. Since this test has excellent performance characteristics (sensitivity and specificity) for the prediction of fetal hypoxia and acidosis our results call into question the cost to benefit ratio of all tests designed to predict these outcomes in low risk women.
Evidence from two RCTs suggests no significant benefits or harms of peritoneal drainage over laparotomy. However, due to the very small sample size, clinically significant differences may have easily been missed. No firm recommendations can be made for clinicians. Large multicentre randomised controlled trials are needed to address this question definitively.