The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: a systematic review. Assessment of the quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in paediatric dentistry journals. Quality of reporting in randomized trials published in high-quality surgical journals. Implementing guidelines for cancer pain management: results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. The reporting of methodological factors in randomized controlled trials and the association with a journal policy to promote adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist. Standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery: can we do better? Family interventions for schizophrenia in Italy: randomized controlled trial. Reporting in randomized clinical trials improved after adoption of the CONSORT statement. Effectiveness of implementing the agency for healthcare research and quality smoking cessation clinical practice guideline: a randomized, controlled trial. Modifying dyspepsia management in primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial of educational outreach compared with passive guideline dissemination. Patient functioning and family burden in a controlled, real-world trial of family psychoeducation for schizophrenia.
In order to examine the reporting quality of urological RCTs, the initial objectives of this study were to evaluate the degree to which RCTs involving urological surgical techniques (as the intervention) published in the years 2000-2003 complied with the CONSORT statement, and to assess trends and patterns of compliance. Following our initial findings in urology, we extended the methodology to a number of other specialties to assess whether our findings in urology could be generalised to other surgical disciplines.
                The Royal Society of Medicine (RSM) Library was commissioned to search the Medline and Cochrane databases for RCTs in compliance with the study inclusion criteria below. Additional analyses of five other specialties (non-urological trials: cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, hepatic, orthopaedic and vascular) were also made. For the non-urological trials, 15 English language trials (from each specialty) were randomly picked from a blast search conducted by the RSM for the year 2003. The RCTs were given a score out of 22, reflecting how many of the 22 CONSORT items were complied with (with each item being given equal weighting), this score was termed the "CONSORT score".
                Urology trials: In total 122 RCT abstracts were identified which met the inclusion criteria for this study. From these, 32 were excluded as they were follow-up studies, involved a virtual procedure or were a cost analysis, leaving 90 RCTs published across 35 different journals which were analysed (68.2%, 90/122). The average score of 11.1 for urological trials indicates that RCTs in our sample do not comply with the CONSORT statement. No trials reported how they implemented their randomisation process. Only 46% of RCTs stated that they had permission from an ethics review board, 20% had declared their sources of funding, 14% stated whether there were any conflicts of interest and only 1.1% stated their trial registry number. For non-urological studies, an average CONSORT score of 11.2 was obtained.
                Clinical research teams conducting RCTs in urology and other surgical disciplines demonstrate poor compliance with the CONSORT statement. We would recommend that trials should be registered at their outset and that urological and other surgical journals to consider supporting the CONSORT statement and to have compliance 'hard-wired' into their submission, editorial and peer-review processes. Since it seems the best researchers are unable to produce an RCT results which enable surgical techniques to be critically assessed, there is a need for education about the CONSORT statement and its importance at all levels of surgical training. We believe that an open debate is needed on the possible role of other research designs, such as tracker studies. Whether this study actually raises the question of how appropriate RCTs are to surgical techniques, we leave to the reader. Reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be of high quality to support the conclusions reached by the authors. Poor-quality reporting has been associated with an overestimation in intervention efficacy. Within the field of paediatric dentistry, no study has assessed the quality of reporting.
                The aim of this study was to assess published RCTs in paediatric dental journals between 1985 and 2006 for: (i) whether quality of reporting allows readers to assess the validity of trials; and (ii) whether quality of reporting has improved since the introduction of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines.
                Hand search of the main paediatric dentistry journals; inclusion criteria were: the trial was performed on children, and RCT. CONSORT guidelines were made into an operational checklist. Trials published between 1985 and 1997, and between 1998 and 2006 were compared to determine any improvement since the publication of the CONSORT guidelines.
                One hundred and seventy-three of 5635 articles met the inclusion criteria. Reporting quality was poor overall and showed heterogeneity. It had improved slightly since the publication of CONSORT. Few trials were reported adequately.
                The quality of reporting of clinical trials is poor, and often not adequate to allow readers to assess trial validity. Overall quality of reporting has not substantially improved since the publication of CONSORT. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in surgery can provide valuable evidence of the efficacy of interventions if they are well-designed, appropriately executed, and adequately reported. Adequate reporting of methodology in surgical RCTs is known to be poor, and adverse-event reporting in surgical research is inconsistent. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is a framework to help authors report their findings in a transparent manner. Extensions to the CONSORT statement have been published recently to address deficiencies in adverse-event reporting and in reporting of specific criteria related to nonpharmacologic treatments. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of trial methodology and adverse events in a sample of general surgical RCTs published in high-quality surgical journals using the criteria specified in the CONSORT statements.
                We used impact factor to identify the top three ranked surgical journals in 2004. We then obtained information on all RCTs published in these journals in the 2005 calendar year. We assessed quality of reporting using Jadad score, compared the quality of RCTs from CONSORT-endorsing journals with nonendorsers, and assessed the number of RCTs adequately reporting key generic methodologic, adverse-event-related, and specific nonpharmacologic criteria.
                Of 42 RCTs analyzed, only 40% (17 of 42) had a Jadad score > or = 3. There was no significant difference in the number of high-quality RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals compared with nonendorsers (p = 0.3). The median percentage of RCTs adequately reporting generic methodologic, adverse-event-related, and specific nonpharmacologic criteria was 32.5%, 17%, and 36.5%, respectively.
                Quality of reporting of generic methodologic, adverse-event-related, and specific nonpharmacologic criteria in surgical RCTs is poor. Increased attention to quality of reporting of surgical RCTs is required if studies are to meet published criteria. Pain and symptom management is an integral part of the clinical practice of oncology. A number of guidelines have been developed to assist the clinician in optimizing comfort care. We implemented clinical guidelines for cancer pain management in the community setting and evaluated whether these guidelines improved care.
                Eighty-one cancer patients, aged 37 to 76 years, were enrolled onto a prospective, longitudinal, randomized controlled study from the outpatient clinic settings of 26 western Washington-area medical oncologists. A multilevel treatment algorithm based on the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Guidelines for Cancer Pain Management was compared with standard-practice (control) pain and symptom management therapies used by community oncologists. The primary outcome of interest was pain (Brief Pain Inventory); secondary outcomes of interest were all other symptoms (Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale) and quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale).
                Patients randomized to the pain algorithm group achieved a statistically significant reduction in usual pain intensity, measured as slope scores, when compared with standard community practice (P < .02). Concurrent chemotherapy and patient adherence to treatment were significant mediators of worst pain. There were no significant differences in other symptoms or quality of life between the two treatment groups.
                This guideline implementation study supports the use of algorithmic decision making in the management of cancer pain. These findings suggest that comprehensive pain assessment and evidence-based analgesic decision-making processes do enhance usual pain outcomes. The "Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials" (CONSORT) was developed to improve the suboptimal reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, little is known about the quality of reporting since this publication. We undertook an observational study to determine the quality of reporting key methodological factors in RCTs since the publication of the CONSORT statement and if a journal policy to promote adherence to the CONSORT checklist was associated with superior reporting. We recorded the reporting of 11 key methodological factors in 105 RCTs from 29 medical journals published subsequent to the CONSORT statement. We examined the quality of reporting in relation to whether a journal was a "CONSORT promoter" as defined by inclusion of the CONSORT checklist in a journal's "information to authors" section or a requirement that authors, manuscript reviewers, or copy editors complete the CONSORT checklist. Multivariate analysis controlled for journal impact factor, study outcome, and time of publication. Six of the 11 methodological factors were reported <50% of the time. The number of methodological factors reported was greater in CONSORT promoters than in journals not promoting CONSORT in both unadjusted (6.0 and 5.1, respectively, p-value = 0.03) and adjusted (6.4 and 4.8 of the 11 methodological factors, respectively, p-value = 0.0001) analyses. While journals that promote CONSORT demonstrate superior reporting of RCTs, persistent inadequacies in reporting remain. Until these inadequacies are resolved health-care providers will remain limited in their ability to make informed inferences about the validity of the studies upon which they base their clinical practice. To evaluate the quality of reporting of surgical randomized controlled trials published in surgical and general medical journals using Jadad score, allocation concealment, and adherence to CONSORT guidelines and to identify factors associated with good quality.
                Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence about the relative effectiveness of different interventions. Improper methodology and reporting of RCTs can lead to erroneous conclusions about treatment effects, which may mislead decision-making in health care at all levels.
                Information was obtained on RCTs published in 6 general surgical and 4 general medical journals in the year 2003. The quality of reporting of RCTs was assessed under masked conditions using allocation concealment, Jadad score, and a CONSORT checklist devised for the purpose.
                Of the 69 RCTs analyzed, only 37.7% had a Jadad score of > or =3, and only 13% of the trials clearly explained allocation concealment. The modified CONSORT score of surgical trials reported in medical journals was significantly higher than those reported in surgical journals (Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.001). Overall, the modified CONSORT score was higher in studies with higher author numbers (P = 0.03), multicenter studies (P = 0.002), and studies with a declared funding source (P = 0.022).
                The overall quality of reporting of surgical RCTs was suboptimal. There is a need for improving awareness of the CONSORT statement among authors, reviewers, and editors of surgical journals and better quality control measures for trial reporting and methodology. To evaluate the effectiveness of multiple group family treatment for Schizophrenia.
                Relatives were randomly provided with an informative programme (n = 50), or allocated to receive an additional support programme (n = 26). Patients did not attend the programme to overcome cultural and organizational implementation barriers. The 12 and 24 months clinical and family outcomes were assessed.
                Patients' compliance with standard care was greater at 12 months in the more intensive behavioural management group over a control group receiving treatment as usual (TAU) (n = 25). A reduction in levels of expressed emotion (EE), significantly more frequent in those receiving the additional support programme than just the informative, occurred after treatment completion. Other clinical and family outcomes did not differ. However, treatment benefits declined at 24 months, when baseline high EE was again predictive of patient's admission and relatives were more vulnerable to objective burden. Baseline illness severity variables predicted a number of medium and long-term poor clinical outcomes.
                Although family psychoeducation has been tested in a wide range of Anglo-Saxon settings, there remains need to assess outcomes more internationally. Effective family interventions for people with schizophrenia probably require continued administration of key-elements or ongoing informal support to deal with the vicissitudes of illnesses. To examine the extent to which the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guidelines improved clinical trials reporting and subject attrition, which may undermine the credibility of published randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
                Published RCTs reported in two major medical journals before and after the CONSORT guidelines were systematically reviewed; one used the CONSORT statement (JAMA) and one did not (NEJM).
                The quality of RCT reporting improved for both journals, but JAMA showed more significant and consistent improvements in all aspects of RCT reporting. Subject attrition was better accounted for after the publication of CONSORT, although the attrition rates for various reasons actually increased. Attrition due to unknown reasons, as a percentage of total attrition, declined dramatically, from 68.7% pre-CONSORT to 13.0% post-CONSORT.
                Attrition of study subjects remains a serious problem in RCTs. Bias from selective attrition can undermine the presumptive scientific advantage of RCTs. The CONSORT guidelines improved RCT reporting when they were implemented but did not substantially improve reported attrition rates. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Smoking Cessation Clinical Practice Guideline recommends that all clinicians strongly advise their patients who use tobacco to quit.
                We conducted a randomized, controlled trial of the effectiveness of Guideline implementation at eight community-based primary care clinics in southern Wisconsin (four test sites, four control sites) among 2163 consecutively enrolled adult patients who smoked at least one cigarette per day and presented for nonemergency care during the baseline period (June 16, 1999, to June 20, 2000) or the intervention period (from June 21, 2000, to May 3, 2001). After collecting baseline data, staff at test sites implemented the intervention over a 2-month period. The intervention included a tutorial for intake clinicians, group and individual performance feedback for intake clinicians, use of a modified vital signs stamp, an offer of free nicotine replacement therapy, and proactive telephone counseling. Staff at control sites received only general information about the AHRQ Guideline. Self-reported abstinence from smoking was determined by telephone interviews at 2- and 6-month follow-up assessments. Hierarchical logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) for treatment assignment after adjustment for patient characteristics. All statistical tests were two-sided.
                There were no statistically significant differences in smoking cessation rates between participants at test and control sites during the baseline period. Among participants treated during the intervention period, those at test sites were more likely than those at control sites to report being abstinent at the 2-month (16.4% versus 5.8%; adjusted OR = 3.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.9 to 5.6; P<.001) and 6-month (15.4% versus 9.8%; adjusted OR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.2 to 2.6; P =.009) follow-up assessments and to report continuous abstinence, that is, abstinence at both 2 and 6 months (10.9% versus 3.8%; adjusted OR = 3.4, 95% CI = 1.8 to 6.3; P<.001).
                Implementation of a guideline-based smoking cessation intervention by intake clinicians in primary care is associated with higher abstinence among smokers. Quality improvement initiatives in health services rely upon the effective introduction of clinical practice guidelines. However, even well constructed guidelines have little effect unless supported by dissemination and implementation strategies.
                To test the effectiveness of 'educational outreach' as a strategy for facilitating the uptake of dyspepsia management guidelines in primary care.
                A pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial of guideline introduction, comparing educational outreach with postal guideline dissemination alone.
                One-hundred and fourteen general practices (233 general practitioners) in the Salford and Trafford Health authority catchment area in the northwest of England.
                All practices received guidelines by post in July 1997. The intervention group practices began to receive educational outreach three months later. This consisted of practice-based seminars with hospital specialists at which guideline recommendations were appraised, and implementation plans formulated. Seminars were followed up with 'reinforcement' visits after a further 12 weeks. Outcome measures were: (a) the appropriateness of referral for; and (b) findings at, open access upper gastrointestinal endoscopy; (c) costs of GP prescriptions for acid-suppressing drugs, and (d) the use of laboratory-based serological tests for Helicobacter pylori. Data were collected for seven months before and/or after the intervention and analysed by intention-to-treat.
                (a) The proportion of appropriate referrals was higher in the intervention group in the six-month post-intervention period (practice medians: control = 50.0%, intervention = 63.9%, P < 0.05); (b) the proportion of major findings at endoscopy did not alter significantly; (c) there was a greater rise in overall expenditure on acid-suppressing drugs in the intervention as compared with the control group (+8% versus +2%, P = 0.005); and (d) the median testing rate per practice for H pylori in the post-intervention period was significantly greater in the intervention group (four versus O, P < 0.001).
                This study suggests that educational outreach may be more effective than passive guideline dissemination in changing clinical behaviour. It also demonstrates that unpredictable and unanticipated outcomes may emerge. This study explored the effectiveness of a psychoeducational family intervention for schizophrenia on patients' personal and social functioning as well as on relatives' burden and perceived support.
                Thirty-four mental health professionals from 17 public mental health centers in Italy selected 71 families of consumers with schizophrenia. Forty-two families were randomly assigned to a group that received the intervention for six months, and 29 families were assigned to a waiting list for six months. At baseline and six months later, validated tools were used to assess patients' clinical status, personal and social functioning, and social network as well as relatives' burden, social resources, and perception of professional support.
                In the intervention group the number of patients with poor or very poor global personal and social functioning decreased significantly, from 17 (47 percent) at baseline to nine (25 percent) at follow-up. A significant improvement was found for the intervention group in patients' social relationships, interests in obtaining a job, maintenance of social interests, and management of social conflicts. Twenty-seven patients (74 percent) reported that their social relationships had improved during the six-month period. For both the intervention and control groups, family burden significantly improved. Relatives' social contacts and perception of professional support significantly increased only in the intervention group.
                The results suggest that a psychoeducational family intervention may have a significant impact on functional outcomes of schizophrenia when provided to patients and caregivers in real-world settings.
Family intervention may reduce the number of relapse events and hospitalisations and would therefore be of interest to people with schizophrenia, clinicians and policy makers. However, the treatment effects of these trials may be overestimated due to the poor methodological quality. Further data from trials that describe the methods of randomisation, test the blindness of the study evaluators, and implement the CONSORT guidelines would enable greater confidence in these findings.