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
  • [41] Specification of interventions and selection of controls in randomized controlled trials of acupuncture: a cross-sectional survey
    Liu, Jiali
    Li, Ling
    Luo, Xiaochao
    Qin, Xuan
    Zhao, Ling
    Zhao, Jiping
    Zhou, Xu
    Liu, Yanmei
    Deng, Ke
    Ma, Yu
    Zou, Kang
    Sun, Xin
    ACUPUNCTURE IN MEDICINE, 2022, 40 (06) : 524 - 537
  • [42] Prevalence of and factors associated with potentially redundant randomized controlled trials: a cross-sectional study
    Yun, Qingping
    Lin, Minqing
    Jia, Yuanxi
    Wang, Yuxin
    Zhang, Jiayue
    Sha, Feng
    Yang, Zuyao
    Tang, Jinling
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2024, 167
  • [43] Reporting of sex and gender in randomized controlled trials in Canada: a cross-sectional methods study
    V. Welch
    M. Doull
    M. Yoganathan
    J. Jull
    M. Boscoe
    S. E. Coen
    Z. Marshall
    J. Pardo Pardo
    A. Pederson
    J. Petkovic
    L. Puil
    L. Quinlan
    B. Shea
    T. Rader
    V. Runnels
    S. Tudiver
    Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2 (1)
  • [44] The quality of reporting in randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for knee osteoarthritis: A cross-sectional survey
    Jia, Pengli
    Tang, Li
    Yu, Jiajie
    Liu, Jiali
    Kang, Deying
    Sun, Xin
    PLOS ONE, 2018, 13 (04):
  • [45] Converting systematic reviews to Cochrane format: a cross-sectional survey of Australian authors of systematic reviews
    Piehl, JH
    Green, S
    McDonald, S
    BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2003, 3 (1)
  • [46] Converting systematic reviews to Cochrane format: a cross-sectional survey of Australian authors of systematic reviews
    Janet H Piehl
    Sally Green
    Steve McDonald
    BMC Health Services Research, 3
  • [47] Assessing core outcome set uptake in randomized controlled trials for chronic kidney disease: Cross-sectional analysis
    Hagood, Alex
    Corwin, Logan Patrick
    Modi, Jay S.
    Jones, Garrett A.
    Fitzgerald, Kyle J.
    Magana, Kimberly J.
    Ward, Shaelyn A.
    Magee, Trevor R.
    Hughes, Griffin K.
    Ford, Alicia Ito
    Vassar, Matt
    CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS COMMUNICATIONS, 2024, 41
  • [48] Pilot randomized controlled trials in the orthopaedic surgery literature: a systematic review
    Desai, Bijal
    Desai, Veeral
    Shah, Shivani
    Srinath, Archita
    Saleh, Amr
    Simunovic, Nicole
    Duong, Andrew
    Sprague, Sheila
    Bhandari, Mohit
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2018, 19
  • [49] Pilot randomized controlled trials in the orthopaedic surgery literature: a systematic review
    Bijal Desai
    Veeral Desai
    Shivani Shah
    Archita Srinath
    Amr Saleh
    Nicole Simunovic
    Andrew Duong
    Sheila Sprague
    Mohit Bhandari
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 19
  • [50] Incorporation of assessments of risk of bias of primary studies in systematic reviews of randomised trials: a cross-sectional study
    Hopewell, Sally
    Boutron, Isabelle
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Ravaud, Philippe
    BMJ OPEN, 2013, 3 (08):