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
  • [31] Predictors of Citations of Systematic Reviews in Oral Implantology: A Cross-Sectional Bibliometric Analysis
    Louscher, Blake M.
    Allareddy, Veerasathpurush
    Elangovan, Satheesh
    SAGE OPEN, 2019, 9 (01):
  • [32] Systematic literature reviews in oncology: A cross-sectional analysis of ambiguity in publication practice
    Jones, Carole
    Fowler, Robyn
    Lula, Sadiq
    McCracken, Rebecca
    Smoyer, Karen
    CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, 2016, 32 : S18 - S18
  • [33] Prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis use in elective orthopaedic surgery - a cross-sectional analysis
    Rohrer, Felix
    Maurer, Anita
    Noetzli, Hubert
    Gahl, Brigitta
    Limacher, Andreas
    Hermann, Tanja
    Bruegger, Jan
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2021, 22 (01)
  • [34] Prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis use in elective orthopaedic surgery – a cross-sectional analysis
    Felix Rohrer
    Anita Maurer
    Hubert Noetzli
    Brigitta Gahl
    Andreas Limacher
    Tanja Hermann
    Jan Bruegger
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 22
  • [35] Systematic Reviews Published in Emergency Medicine Journals Do Not Routinely Search Clinical Trials Registries: A Cross-Sectional Analysis
    Keil, Lukas G.
    Platts-Mills, Timothy F.
    Jones, Christopher W.
    ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2015, 66 (04) : 424 - 427
  • [36] Differences between protocols for randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews
    Pieper, Dawid
    Allers, Katharina
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2018, 98 : 144 - 145
  • [39] Research waste among randomized controlled trials in ovarian cancer: A cross-sectional study
    Lin, Lizhen
    Tang, Yihui
    Yang, Lingling
    Wang, Yanlong
    Chen, Ruixin
    EJSO, 2024, 50 (07):
  • [40] Completeness of intervention reporting in neurology randomized controlled trials: a retrospective, cross-sectional study
    Roberts, William
    Beavers, Craig
    Jellison, Samuel
    Vassar, Matt
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE-BASED HEALTHCARE, 2020, 18 (02) : 212 - 221