Bias in Hand Surgical Randomized Controlled Trials: Systematic Review and Meta-Epidemiological Study

被引:1
作者
Heikkinen, Juuso [1 ]
Jokihaara, Jarkko [2 ,3 ]
Das De, Soumen [4 ]
Jaatinen, Kati [5 ]
Buchbinder, Rachelle [6 ,7 ,8 ]
Karjalainen, Teemu [9 ]
机构
[1] Univ Oulu, Oulu Univ Hosp, Med Res Ctr, Dept Surg,Div Orthoped & Trauma Surg, Oulu, Finland
[2] Tampere Univ Hosp, Dept Hand Surg, Tampere, Finland
[3] Tampere Univ, Fac Med & Life Sci, Tampere, Finland
[4] Natl Univ Hlth Syst, Dept Hand & Reconstruct Microsurg, Singapore, Singapore
[5] Univ Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland
[6] Cabrini Inst, Monash Dept Clin Epidemiol, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[7] Monash Univ, Sch Publ Hlth & Prevent Med, Dept Epidemiol & Prevent Med, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[8] Univ Warwick, Warwick Med Sch, Clin Trials Unit, Coventry, W Midlands, England
[9] Cent Finland Cent Hosp, Dept Surg, Unit Hand Surg, Jyvaskyla, Finland
来源
JOURNAL OF HAND SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME | 2022年 / 47卷 / 06期
关键词
Cochrane; hand surgery; internal validity; randomized controlled trial; risk of bias; CLINICAL-TRIALS; EMPIRICAL-EVIDENCE; OBSERVER BIAS; EFFECT SIZE; OUTCOMES; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.jhsa.2022.01.027
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Purpose Inappropriately reported or conducted studies may decrease the quality of care due to under- or overestimation of the benefits or harms of interventions. Our aim was to evaluate how often hand surgical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) use and report adequate methods to ensure internal validity, and whether inadequate reporting or methods are associated with the magnitude of treatment effect estimates. Methods Data Sources were the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase databases until November 2020. We included published RCTs investigating the effects of any surgical intervention in the hand and wrist region. We assessed internal validity using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool for 6 domains: selection, performance, detection, attrition, selective reporting, and "other" bias. We extracted the primary outcome and calculated the effect size for each study. We used mixed-effect meta-regression to assess whether the RoB modified the magnitude of the effects. Results For 207 assessed trials, the RoB was unclear or high for 72% in selection, 93% in performance, 88% in detection, 25% in attrition, 22% in selective reporting, and 34% in the "other" bias domain. Trials with a high or unclear risk of selection bias yielded 0.28 standardized mean difference (95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.55) larger effect sizes compared to studies with a low risk. Risks of bias for other domains did not modify the intervention effects. The risk for selection bias declined over time: the odds ratio for a high or unclear RoB was 0.90 (95% confidence interval, 0.85-0.95) per additional year of publication. Conclusions The internal validity and credibility of hand surgical RCTs can be improved by using established methods to achieve true randomization, blinding of the participants and study personnel, publishing the trial protocol and avoiding selective reporting of the outcomes, and reporting the trial as recommended in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. Copyright (C) 2022 by the American Society for Surgery of the Hand. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:526 / 533
页数:8
相关论文
共 33 条
  • [1] Blinding in Physical Therapy Trials and Its Association with Treatment Effects A Meta-epidemiological Study
    Armijo-Olivo, Susan
    Fuentes, Jorge
    da Costa, Bruno R.
    Saltaji, Humam
    Ha, Christine
    Cummings, Greta G.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE & REHABILITATION, 2017, 96 (01) : 34 - 44
  • [2] Beard DJ, 2020, LANCET, V395, P828, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)33137-X
  • [3] Berkman ND, 2014, METHODS RES REPORT P
  • [4] Berkman ND., 2014, The Empirical Evidence of Bias in Trials Measuring Treatment Differences
  • [5] Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence
    Chalmers, Iain
    Glasziou, Paul
    [J]. LANCET, 2009, 374 (9683) : 86 - 89
  • [6] Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research
    Chan, AW
    Krieza-Jeric, K
    Schmid, I
    Altman, DG
    [J]. CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2004, 171 (07) : 735 - 740
  • [7] Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials -: Comparison of Protocols to published articles
    Chan, AW
    Hróbjartsson, A
    Haahr, MT
    Gotzsche, PC
    Altman, DG
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2004, 291 (20): : 2457 - 2465
  • [8] Chinn S, 2000, STAT MED, V19, P3127, DOI 10.1002/1097-0258(20001130)19:22<3127::AID-SIM784>3.0.CO
  • [9] 2-M
  • [10] Empirical evaluation of which trial characteristics are associated with treatment effect estimates
    Dechartres, Agnes
    Trinquart, Ludovic
    Faber, Timor
    Ravaud, Philippe
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2016, 77 : 24 - 37