The use of systematic reviews to justify orthopaedic trauma randomized controlled trials: A cross-sectional analysis

被引:7
|
作者
Johnson, Austin L. [1 ]
Walters, Corbin [1 ]
Gray, Harrison [1 ]
Torgerson, Trevor [1 ]
Checketts, Jake X. [1 ]
Boose, Marshall [2 ]
Norris, Brent [2 ,3 ]
Vassar, Matt [1 ]
机构
[1] Oklahoma State Univ, Ctr Hlth Sci, 1111 W 17th St, Tulsa, OK 74107 USA
[2] Oklahoma State Univ, Dept Orthopaed, Med Ctr, Tulsa, OK 74107 USA
[3] Orthopaed & Trauma Serv Oklahoma, Tulsa, OK USA
关键词
Meta-research; Systematic review; Meta-analysis; Randomized controlled trials; Clinical trial; Research waste; Methods; Orthopaedics; Epidemiology; Cross-sectional analysis; CLINICAL-TRIALS; SURGERY; WASTE;
D O I
10.1016/j.injury.2019.11.004
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Objective: Orthopaedic trauma is one of the largest surgical fields in medicine, and as such, requires the latest evidence to ensure the best standard of care. Systematic reviews are an invaluable resource that compiles an exhaustive summary of the most current evidence on a given clinical question. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the use of systematic reviews as justification in conducting randomized controlled trials published in high impact orthopaedic trauma journals. Methods: We analyzed randomized controlled trials published in the top three high impact orthopaedic trauma journals between 2015 and 2018. We performed data extraction blind, independent, and in duplicative manner to ensure the validity of the findings. For each trial, data was extracted by the number of systematic reviews cited in each clinical trial and whether or not the study used a systematic review as justification for conducting the trial. A subgroup of general orthopaedic clinical trials were included for comparison. Results: Of 144 articles retrieved, 128 were included. Overall, 71.1% (91/128; [95% CI, 63.2-78.9]) of included orthopaedic trauma randomized controlled trials referenced a systematic review and 28.9% (37/128) of studies did not cite a systematic review. Of the 91 trials that referenced a systematic review, 33.0% (30/91; [95% CI, 23.3-42.6]) of RCTs cited a systematic review as trial justification, whether that be "verbatim" or "inferred". "Verbatim" justifications occurred in 20.0% (6/30; [95% CI, 5.7-34.3]) of included trauma RCTs that cited a systematic review as justification for conducting the trial and "inferred" justifications occurred in 80.0% (24/30; [95% CI, 65.7-94.3]). Conclusion: Systematic reviews are frequently cited in orthopaedic trauma RCTs but are not commonly cited as justification for conducting a clinical trial. Ideally, evidentiary uncertainty regarding a research question should be established by existing literature through a systematic review to reduce research waste. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:212 / 217
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The use of systematic reviews to justify randomized controlled trials in obstetrics & gynecology publications
    Rauh, Shelby
    Nigro, Toni
    Sims, Matt
    Vassar, Matt
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2020, 252 : 627 - 628
  • [2] A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Spin in Randomized Controlled Trials
    Woodbridge, Alexandra
    Abraham, Ann
    Ahn, Rosa
    Saba, Susan
    Korenstein, Deborah
    Madden, Erin
    Keyhani, Salomeh
    JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2018, 33 (03) : 247 - 248
  • [3] A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Spin in Randomized Controlled Trials
    Alexandra Woodbridge
    Ann Abraham
    Rosa Ahn
    Susan Saba
    Deborah Korenstein
    Erin Madden
    Salomeh Keyhani
    Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2018, 33 : 247 - 248
  • [4] The use of systematic reviews to justify phase III ophthalmology trials: an analysis
    Trevor Torgerson
    Sheridan Evans
    Bradley S. Johnson
    Matt Vassar
    Eye, 2020, 34 : 2041 - 2047
  • [5] The use of systematic reviews to justify phase III ophthalmology trials: an analysis
    Torgerson, Trevor
    Evans, Sheridan
    Johnson, Bradley S.
    Vassar, Matt
    EYE, 2020, 34 (11) : 2041 - 2047
  • [6] Spin in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in dentistry A cross-sectional analysis
    Roszhart, Jordan, I
    Kumar, Satish S.
    Allareddy, Veerasathpurush
    Childs, Christopher A.
    Elangovan, Satheesh
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, 2020, 151 (01): : 26 - +
  • [7] Design, Conduct, and Analysis of Surgical Randomized Controlled Trials A Cross-sectional Survey
    Yu, Jiajie
    Chen, Wenwen
    Chen, Shidong
    Jia, Pengli
    Su, Guanyue
    Li, Youping
    Sun, Xin
    ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2019, 270 (06) : 1065 - 1069
  • [8] Spin in the Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials in Operative Dentistry: A Cross-sectional Analysis
    Fang, X.
    Wu, X.
    Levey, C.
    Chen, Z.
    Hua, F.
    Zhang, L.
    OPERATIVE DENTISTRY, 2022, 47 (03) : 287 - 300
  • [9] Use of clustering analysis in randomized controlled trials in orthopaedic surgery
    Oltean, Hanna
    Gagnier, Joel J.
    BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2015, 15
  • [10] Clinical trials registries are under-utilized in the conduct of systematic reviews: A cross-sectional analysis
    Jones C.W.
    Keil L.G.
    Weaver M.A.
    Platts-Mills T.F.
    Systematic Reviews, 3 (1)