Quality of reporting and fragility index for randomized controlled trials in the vesicoureteral reflux literature: where do we stand?

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the "gold standard" methodology for examining the effects of clinical interventions, yet only 1% of urology literature employs this design. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement contains a standardized checklis...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of pediatric urology 2019-05, Vol.15 (3), p.204-212
Hauptverfasser: Gnech, M., Lovatt, C.A., McGrath, M., Rickard, M., Sanger, S., Lorenzo, A.J., Braga, L.H.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the "gold standard" methodology for examining the effects of clinical interventions, yet only 1% of urology literature employs this design. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement contains a standardized checklist of 37 items to be included when reporting RCTs to ensure transparency and completeness of information [2]. Despite the robust design of RCTs, the number of events can greatly change the significance of the results, which can be represented by the fragility index (FI). The objective was to assess the quality of reporting of RCTs in the pediatric vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) literature using the 2010 CONSORT statement and, for studies with significant positive findings, to determine the FI as a measure of robustness of the results. A comprehensive search was conducted through MEDLINE® and Embase® to identify RCTs in VUR literature from 2000 to 2016. Two reviewers independently selected articles, which were evaluated using the CONSORT checklist. An overall quality of reporting score (OQS) (%) was calculated by dividing the number of checklist items present in each study by the maximum possible score (34) and expressed as a percentage. Studies were classified as low (70%) based on the modified assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR) checklist. Of the 2052 initial matches, 98% were excluded due to methodology or content, a further 28 studies were found not to meet inclusion criteria after full text review. The FI was calculated for the 7 studies that met inclusion criteria with significantly different results by manually adding events to the study groups until p>0.05. Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria. The mean OQS was 46+17% with 9 (41%) identified as low quality (score 70%). There was no significant difference in OQS between RCTs with a sample size > 100 (n=15) versus
ISSN:1477-5131
1873-4898
DOI:10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.02.014