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
  • [21] The current use of Twitter in orthopaedic surgery departments: A cross-sectional analysis
    Zitsch, Bradford P.
    Worley, John R.
    Cornell, Georgeanne E.
    Skelley, Nathan W.
    CURRENT ORTHOPAEDIC PRACTICE, 2020, 31 (02): : 186 - 190
  • [22] The Transplant Library of Randomized Controlled Trials and Systematic Reviews
    Pengel, Liset
    Morris, Peter
    TRANSPLANTATION, 2011, 92 (06) : 613 - 616
  • [23] Clinical equipoise and systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials
    Catala-Lopez, Ferran
    Gonzalez-Bermejo, Diana
    de la Fuente Honrubia, Cesar
    Macias Saint-Gerons, Diego
    MEDICINA CLINICA, 2015, 145 (11): : 496 - 498
  • [24] The use of systematic reviews to justify anaesthesiology trials: A meta-epidemiological study
    Engelking, A.
    Cavar, M.
    Puljak, L.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PAIN, 2018, 22 (10) : 1844 - 1849
  • [25] The methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials: A cross-sectional systemic review
    Yu, Jiajie
    Yang, Zhengyue
    Zhang, You
    Cui, Yufan
    Tang, Jinlian
    Hirst, Allison
    Li, Youping
    ASIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2022, 45 (10) : 1817 - 1822
  • [26] The Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society: 30 years of randomized controlled trials
    Rossiter, N. D.
    Chesser, T. J. S.
    Costa, M. L.
    BONE & JOINT JOURNAL, 2021, 103B (05): : 807 - 808
  • [27] Factors Associated With Enrollment into Inpatient Coronavirus Disease 2019 Randomized Controlled Trials: A Cross-sectional Analysis
    Kaczynski, Matthew
    Benitez, Gregorio
    Mylona, Evangelia K.
    Tran, Quynh-Lam
    Atalla, Eleftheria
    Tsikala-Vafea, Maria
    Kalagara, Saisanjana
    Shehadeh, Fadi
    Mylonakis, Eleftherios
    OPEN FORUM INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2023, 10 (05):
  • [28] Analysis of cluster randomized trials with repeated cross-sectional binary measurements
    Ukoumunne, OC
    Thompson, SG
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2001, 20 (03) : 417 - 433
  • [29] Prevalence and factors associated with use of placebo control groups in randomized controlled trials in psoriasis: A cross-sectional study
    Katz, Kenneth A.
    Karlawish, Jason H.
    Chiang, David S.
    Bognet, Rachel A.
    Propert, Katherine J.
    Margolis, David J.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY, 2006, 55 (05) : 814 - 822
  • [30] The presence of spin in systematic reviews focused on diabetic neuropathy: A cross-sectional analysis
    Khan, Ali
    Riley, Haley
    Ottwell, Ryan
    Arthur, Wade
    Greiner, Benjamin
    Shapiro, Ekaterina
    Wright, Drew
    Hartwell, Micah
    Chen, Suhao
    Miao, Zhuqi
    Chronister, Stacy
    Vassar, Matt
    PLOS ONE, 2022, 17 (09):