Methodological quality of randomised controlled trials comparing short-term results of laparoscopic and conventional colorectal resection
Randomised, controlled trials (RCT) and systematic reviews of RCT with meta-analysis are considered to be of highest methodological quality and therefore are given the highest level of evidence (Ia/b). Although, “low-quality” RCT may be downgraded to level of evidence IIb, the methodological quality of each individual RCT is not respected in detail in this classification of the level of evidence.
Materials and methods
Within a systematic Cochrane Review of RCT on short-term benefits of laparoscopic or conventional colorectal resections, the methodological quality of all included RCT was evaluated. All RCT were assessed by the Evans and Pollock questionnaire (E and P increasing quality from 0–100) and the Jadad score (increasing quality from 0–5).
Publications from 28 RCT printed from 1996 to 2005 were included in the analysis. Methodological quality of RCT was only moderate [E & P 55 (32–84); Jadad 2 (1–5)]. There was a significant correlation between the E & P and the Jadad score (r = 0.788; p < 0.001). Methodological quality of RCT slightly increased with increasing number of patients included (r = 0.494; p = 0.009) and year of publication (r = 0.427; p = 0.03). Meta-analysis of all RCT yielded clinically relevant differences for overall and local morbidity when compared to meta-analysis of “high-quality” (E & P > 70) RCT only.
The methodological quality of reports of RCT comparing laparoscopic and open colorectal resection varies considerably. In a systematic review, methodological quality of RCT should be assessed because meta-analysis of “high-quality” RCT may yield different results than meta-analysis of all RCT.
KeywordsRandomised controlled trials Methodological quality Scores Evidence-based medicine
Conflict of interest and funding
The authors state that there are no commercial or other associations that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with submitted material. There was no external funding of any kind supporting the work.
- 2.Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Laupacis A, Sackett DL (1992) Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest 102(4):S305–S311Google Scholar
- 3.Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (2005) Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine; http://www.cebm.net/levels_of_evidence.asp#levels.
- 4.Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker J, Muller JM (2005) Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3):CD003145Google Scholar
- 10.Alderson P, Green S, Higgins JPT (2004) Cochrane Reviewer’s Handbook 4.2.2. Wiley, Chichester, UK, (updated March 2004)Google Scholar
- 12.Spilker B (1991) Guide to clinical trials, 1st ed. Raven PressGoogle Scholar