Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality of surgical randomized controlled trials for acute cholecystitis: assessment based on CONSORT and additional check items

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery

Abstract

Background/Purpose

In this study, we conducted a limited survey of reports of surgical randomized controlled trials, using the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) statement and additional check items to clarify problems in the evaluation of surgical reports.

Methods

A total of 13 randomized trials were selected from two latest review articles on biliary surgery. Each randomized trial was evaluated according to 28 quality measures that comprised items from the CONSORT statement plus additional items. Analysis focused on relationships between the quality of each study and the estimated effect gap (“pooled estimate in meta-analysis” — “estimated effect of each study”).

Results

No definite relationships were found between individual study quality and the estimated effect gap. The following items could have been described but were not provided in almost all the surgical RCT reports: “clearly defined outcomes”; “details of randomization”; “participant flow charts”; “intention-to-treat analysis”; “ancillary analyses”; and “financial conflicts of interest”. The item, “participation of a trial methodologist in the study” was not found in any of the reports.

Conclusions

Although the quality of reporting trials is not always related to a biased estimation of treatment effect, the items used for quality measures must be described to enable readers to evaluate the quality and applicability of the reporting. Further development of an assessment tool is needed for items specific to surgical randomized controlled trials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Medical Research Council. Streptomycin treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. A Medical Research Council investigation. BMJ 1948;2:769–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS. Clinical studies in surgical journals—have we improved? Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36:43–48.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ellis J, Mulligan I, Rowe J, Sackett DL. Inpatient general medicine is evidence based. Lancet 1995;364:407–410.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Howes N, Chagla L, Thorpe M, McCulloch P. Surgical practice is evidence based. Br J Surg 1997;84:1220–1223.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gattellari M, Ward JE, Solomon MJ. Randomized, controlled trials in surgery: perceived barriers and attitudes of Australian colorectal surgeons. Dis Colon Rectum 2001;44:1413–1420.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lovett B, Sawyer W, Houghton J, Taylor I. Systematic review of the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of the surgical excision of cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2000;26:840.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Moher D, Soeken K, Sampson M, Ben-Porat L, Berman B. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized trials in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Pediatr 2002;2:2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Guyatt G, Rennie D. Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based practice. Chicago: AMA Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001;357:1191–1194.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L; CONSORT Group (Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials). Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA 2001;285:1992–1995.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kaido T. Randomized controlled trials on hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2004;11:381–389.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS. Surgery and the randomised controlled trial: past, present and future. MJA 1998;169:380–383.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D. Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 2002;324:1448–1451.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Boutron I, Tubach F, Giraudeau B, Ravaud P. Methodological differences in clinical trials evaluating nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments of hip and knee osteoarthritis. JAMA 2003;290:1062–1070.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use [http://www.ich.org/]

  17. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003;289:454–465.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003;326:1167–1170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, Montori VM, Schunemann H, Sprague S, et al. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ 2004;170:477–480.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Frizelle FA, Frye J. Surgeon is only one influence on outcome. BMJ 2003;327:564.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics. 5th ed. Pacific Grove: Duxbury; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Shikata S, Noguchi Y, Fukui T. Early versus delayed cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surgery Today 2005;35:553–560.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Papi C, Catarci M, D’Ambrosio L, Gili L, Koch M, Grassi GB, Capurso L. Timing of cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:147–155.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Urschel JD, Blewett CJ, Young JE, Miller JD, Bennett WF. Pyloric drainage (pyloroplasty) or no drainage in gastric reconstruction after esophagectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Dig Surg 2002;19:160–164.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Johansson M, Thune A, Blomqvist A, Nelvin L, Lundell L. Management of acute cholecystitis in the laparoscopic era: results of a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Gastrointest Surg 2003;7:642–645.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chandler CF, Lane JS, Ferguson P, Thompson JE, Ashley SW. Prospective evaluation of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for treatment of acute cholecystitis. Am Surg 2000;66:896–900.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lo CM, Liu CL, Fan ST, Lai EC, Wong J. Prospective randomized study of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Ann Surg 1998;227:461–467.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lai PB, Kwong KH, Leung KL, Kwok SP, Chan AC, Chung SC, Lau WY. Randomized trial of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg 1998;85:764–767.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Ahmad I. Cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. J Pak Med Assoc 1992;42:112–115.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Misra MC, Khanna S, Khosla A, Berry M, Kapur BM. Emergency versus elective cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. Jpn J Surg 1988;18:384–389.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Singh NK, Singh RJ, Rai U. Early versus delayed operation for acute cholecystitis. J Indian Med Assoc 1984;82:356–359.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Norrby S, Herlin P, Holmin T, Sjodahl R, Tagesson C. Early or delayed cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis? A clinical trial. Br J Surg 1983;70:163–165.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Jarvinen HJ, Hastbacka J. Early cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a prospective randomized study. Ann Surg 1980;191:501–505.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Schaefer D, Barth H, Thon K, Jostarndt L, Maroske D. Early or delayed operation in patients with acute cholecystitis. Results of a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Chir Forum Exp Klin Forsch 1980;1:149–153.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lahtinen J, Alhava EM, Aukee S. Acute cholecystitis treated by early and delayed surgery. A controlled clinical trial. Scand J Gastroenterol 1978;13:673–678.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. McArthur P, Cuschieri A, Sells RA, Shields R. Controlled clinical trial comparing early with interval cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg 1975;62:850–852.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. van der Linden W, Sunzel H. Early versus delayed operation for acute cholecystitis. A controlled clinical trial. Am J Surg 1970;120:7–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Akyurek N, Irkorucu O, Salman B, Erdem O, Sare M, Tatlicioglu E. Unexpected gallbladder cancer during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2004;11:357–361.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. McLeod R. Randomized, controlled trials. Is there a role for them in Surgery? Ann Surg 2006;244:684–685.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hrobjartsson A, Gotzsche PC. Is the placebo powerless? An analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment. N Engl J Med 2001;344:1594–1602.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Majeed AW, Troy G, Nicholl JP, Smythe A, Reed MW, Stoddard CJ, et al. Randomised, prospective, single-blind comparison of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy. Lancet 1996;347:989–994.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. McMahon AJ, Russell IT, Baxter JN, Ross S, Anderson JR, Morran CG, et al. Laparoscopic versus minilaparotomy cholecystectomy: a randomised trial. Lancet 1994;343:135–138.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. Users guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. A. Are the results of the study valid? JAMA 1993;270:2598–2601.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomized controlled trials. BMJ 1999;319:670–674.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Ruiz-Canela M, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, de Irala-Estevez J. Intention to treat analysis is related to methodological quality. BMJ 2000;320:1007–1008.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Kruse RL, Alper BS, Reust C, Stevermer JJ, Shannon S, Williams RH. Intention-to-treat analysis: who is in? Who is out? J Fam Pract 2002;51:969–971.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408–412.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Balk EM, Bonis PA, Moskowitz H, Schmid CH, Ioannidis JP, Wang C, Lau J. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2002;287:2973–2982.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Jüni JP, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001;323:42–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Soares HP, Daniels S, Kumar A, Clarke M, Scott C, Swann S, Djulbegovic B; Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. BMJ 2004;328:22–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Digestive Surgery, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan

    Satoru Shikata & Hisakazu Yamagishi

  2. Department of Health Informatics, Kyoto University School of Public Health, Konoe-cho, Yoshida, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan

    Satoru Shikata & Takeo Nakayama

Authors
  1. Satoru Shikata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Takeo Nakayama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hisakazu Yamagishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

Shikata, S., Nakayama, T. & Yamagishi, H. Quality of surgical randomized controlled trials for acute cholecystitis: assessment based on CONSORT and additional check items. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 15, 297–303 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00534-007-1268-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00534-007-1268-8

Key words

Search

Navigation