The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American) 84:388-396 (2002)
© 2002 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
The Quality of Reporting of Randomized Trials in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery from 1988 through 2000
Mohit Bhandari, MD, MSc,
Robin R. Richards, MD, FRCSC,
Sheila Sprague, BSc and
Emil H. Schemitsch, MD, FRCSC
Investigation performed at the Department of Clinical Epidemiology
and Biostatistics, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, Hamilton,
Ontario, Canada
Mohit Bhandari, MD, MSc
Sheila Sprague, BSc
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster
University Health Sciences Centre, Room 2C12, 1200 Main Street West,
Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada. E-mail address for M. Bhandari: bhandari{at}sympatico.ca
Robin R. Richards, MD, FRCSC
Emil H. Schemitsch, MD, FRCSC
Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, St. Michael’s
Hospital, 55 Queen Street East, Suite 800, Toronto, ON M5C 1R6,
Canada
The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support
of their research or preparation of this manuscript. They did not
receive payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement
to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial
entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits
to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other
charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are
affiliated or associated. Dr. Bhandari was supported, in part, by
a Clinical Scientist Fellowship, Department of Clinical Epidemiology
and Biostatistics, McMaster University. Sheila Sprague was supported
by the Surgical Outcomes Research Centre, Hamilton, Ontario.
Background: The purpose of this study was threefold:
(1) to determine the scientific quality of published randomized
trials in the American Volume of The Journal of Bone and
Joint Surgery from 1988 through 2000, (2) to identify predictors
of study quality, and (3) to evaluate inter-rater agreement in the
scoring of study quality with use of a simple scale.
Methods: Hand searches of The Journal of
Bone and Joint Surgery were conducted in duplicate to identify
randomized clinical trials. Of 2468 studies identified, seventy-two
(2.9%) met all eligibility criteria. Two investigators
each assessed the quality of the study under blinded conditions
and abstracted relevant data.
Results: The mean score (and standard error) for
the quality of the seventy-two randomized trials was 68.1% ±
1.6%; 60% (forty-three) scored <75%.
Drug trials had a significantly higher mean quality score than did
surgical trials (72.8% compared with 63.9%, p < 0.05).
Regression analysis revealed that cited affiliation with an epidemiology
department and cited funding were associated with higher quality
scores. Failure to conceal randomization, to blind outcome assessors,
and to describe why patients were excluded resulted in significantly lower
quality scores (p < 0.05), more than the 5% decrease expected
by removal of each item. A priori calculations of sample size were
rarely performed in the reviewed studies, and only 2% of
the studies with negative results included a post hoc power analysis.
The Detsky quality scale met accepted standards of interobserver
reliability (kappa, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.70
to 0.95).
Conclusions: Few studies published in The
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery were randomized trials.
More than half of the trials were limited by a lack of concealed
randomization, lack of blinding of outcome assessors, or failure
to report reasons for excluding patients. Application of standardized
guidelines for the reporting of clinical trials in orthopaedics
should improve quality.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
I. Boutron, D. Moher, D. G. Altman, K. F. Schulz, P. Ravaud, and for the CONSORT Group
Extending the CONSORT Statement to Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatment: Explanation and Elaboration
Ann Intern Med,
February 19, 2008;
148(4):
295 - 309.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Boutron, D. Moher, D. G. Altman, K. F. Schulz, P. Ravaud, and for the CONSORT Group
Methods and Processes of the CONSORT Group: Example of an Extension for Trials Assessing Nonpharmacologic Treatments
Ann Intern Med,
February 19, 2008;
148(4):
W-60 - W-66.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. A. Olivo, L. G. Macedo, I. C. Gadotti, J. Fuentes, T. Stanton, and D. J Magee
Scales to Assess the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review
Physical Therapy,
February 1, 2008;
88(2):
156 - 175.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Morshed and M. Bhandari
Clinical Trial Design in Fracture-Healing Research: Meeting the Challenge
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.,
February 1, 2008;
90(Supplement_1):
55 - 61.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Chan and M. Bhandari
The Quality of Reporting of Orthopaedic Randomized Trials with Use of a Checklist for Nonpharmacological Therapies
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.,
September 1, 2007;
89(9):
1970 - 1978.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. B. Trippel, M. J. Bosse, D. A. Heck, and J. G. Wright
Symposium. How to Participate in Orthopaedic Randomized Clinical Trials
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.,
August 1, 2007;
89(8):
1856 - 1864.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. R. Lynch, M. R.A. Cunningham, W. J. Warme, D. C. Schaad, F. M. Wolf, and S. S. Leopold
Commercially Funded and United States-Based Research Is More Likely to Be Published; Good-Quality Studies with Negative Outcomes Are Not
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.,
May 1, 2007;
89(5):
1010 - 1018.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. W. Poolman, P. A.A. Struijs, R. Krips, I. N. Sierevelt, R. K. Marti, F. Farrokhyar, and M. Bhandari
Reporting of Outcomes in Orthopaedic Randomized Trials: Does Blinding of Outcome Assessors Matter?
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.,
March 1, 2007;
89(3):
550 - 558.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Kober, S. Trelle, and A. Engert
Reporting of randomized controlled trials in Hodgkin lymphoma in biomedical journals.
J Natl Cancer Inst,
May 3, 2006;
98(9):
620 - 625.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. J. K. Khan, D. Fick, F. Yao, K. Tang, M. Hurworth, B. Nivbrant, and D. Wood
A comparison of three methods of wound closure following arthroplasty: A PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMISED, CONTROLLED TRIAL
J Bone Joint Surg Br,
February 1, 2006;
88-B(2):
238 - 242.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. F. Hill, V. J. Russell, L. J. Salmon, and L. A. Pinczewski
The Influence of Supplementary Tibial Fixation on Laxity Measurements After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Hamstring Tendons in Female Patients
Am. J. Sports Med.,
January 1, 2005;
33(1):
94 - 101.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Bhattacharyya, P. TornettaIII, W. L Healy, and T. A Einhorn
The Validity of Claims Made in Orthopaedic Print Advertisements
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.,
July 3, 2003;
85(7):
1224 - 1228.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. L. Helfet, N. P. Haas, J. Schatzker, P. Matter, R. Moser, and B. Hanson
AO Philosophy and Principles of Fracture Management-Its Evolution and Evaluation
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.,
May 28, 2003;
85(6):
1156 - 1160.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
