Evaluating the evidence: the methodological and reporting quality of comparative observational studies of surgical interventions in urological publications

被引:20
作者
Tseng, Timothy Y. [2 ]
Breau, Rodney H. [3 ]
Fesperman, Susan F.
Vieweg, Johannes
Dahm, Philipp [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Florida, Dept Urol, Coll Med, Hlth Sci Ctr, Gainesville, FL 32610 USA
[2] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Div Urol Surg, Durham, NC USA
[3] Univ Ottawa, Dept Urol, Ottawa, ON, Canada
关键词
evidence-based medicine; research design standards; epidemiological; publishing standards; observational study methods; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS; SYSTEM; NEED;
D O I
10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08155.x
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
To develop and apply a standardized evaluation form for assessing the methodological and reporting quality of observational studies of surgical interventions in urology. An evaluation standard was developed using the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials statement and previously reported surgical reporting quality instruments. Consensus scoring among three reviewers was developed using two distinct sets of studies. All comparative observational trials involving therapeutic surgical procedures published in four major urological journals in 1995 and 2005 were randomly assigned to each reviewer. Categories of reporting adequacy included background, intervention, statistical analysis, results and discussion. Twenty-seven articles in 1995 and 62 in 2005 met the inclusion criteria; 90% of studies were retrospective. From 1995 to 2005, the overall reporting quality score increased by 3.9 points (95% confidence interval, CI, 2.7-5.9; P = 0.001), from a mean (sd) of 19.1 (3.9) to 23.0 (4.2) on a scale of 0-42. There were significant improvements in the reporting categories of study background (+0.7 points, 95% CI 0.1-1.3, P = 0.043, 0-8-point scale), intervention (+1.6 points, 0.8-2.3, P = 0.001, 0-9-point scale), and statistical analysis (+0.8 points, 0.2-1.4, P = 0.006, 0-9-point scale). There were smaller and statistically insignificant improvements for results (+0.5 points, -0.3 to 1.2, P = 0.217, 0-10-point scale) and discussion reporting (+0.4 points, -0.1 to 0.8, P = 0.106, 0-6-point scale). There have been minor improvements in the reporting of observational studies of surgical intervention between 1995 and 2005. However, reporting quality remains suboptimal. Clinical investigators, reviewers and journal editors should continue to strive for transparent reporting of the observational studies representing the bulk of the clinical evidence for urological procedures.
引用
收藏
页码:1026 / 1031
页数:6
相关论文
共 20 条
[1]   EQUATOR: reporting guidelines for health research [J].
Altman, Douglas G. ;
Simera, Iveta ;
Hoey, John ;
Moher, David ;
Schutz, Ken .
LANCET, 2008, 371 (9619) :1149-1150
[2]   Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials - The CONSORT statement [J].
Begg, C ;
Cho, M ;
Eastwood, S ;
Horton, R ;
Moher, D ;
Olkin, I ;
Pitkin, R ;
Rennie, D ;
Schulz, KF ;
Simel, D ;
Stroup, DF .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1996, 276 (08) :637-639
[3]   Levels of evidence in the urological literature [J].
Borawski, Kristy M. ;
Norris, Regina D. ;
Fesperman, Susan F. ;
Vieweg, Johannes ;
Preminger, Glenn M. ;
Dahm, Philipp .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2007, 178 (04) :1429-1433
[4]   Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative [J].
Bossuyt, PM ;
Reitsma, JB ;
Bruns, DE ;
Gatsonis, CA ;
Glasziou, PP ;
Irwig, LM ;
Lijmer, JG ;
Moher, D ;
Rennie, D ;
de Vet, HCW .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2003, 138 (01) :40-44
[5]   Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: Explanation and elaboration [J].
Boutron, Isabelle ;
Moher, David ;
Altman, Douglas G. ;
Schulz, Kenneth F. ;
Ravaud, Philippe .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2008, 148 (04) :295-309
[6]   Defining human differences in biomedicine [J].
Brown, Maggie .
PLOS MEDICINE, 2007, 4 (09) :1421-1422
[7]   INSTRUMENTS FOR ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF DRUG STUDIES PUBLISHED IN THE MEDICAL LITERATURE [J].
CHO, MK ;
BERO, LA .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1994, 272 (02) :101-104
[8]   Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: The TREND statement [J].
Des Jarlais, DC ;
Lyles, C ;
Crepaz, N .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2004, 94 (03) :361-366
[9]   Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials [J].
Devereaux, PJ ;
Bhandari, M ;
Clarke, M ;
Montori, VM ;
Cook, DJ ;
Yusuf, S ;
Sackett, DL ;
Cinà, CS ;
Walter, SD ;
Haynes, B ;
Schünemann, HJ ;
Norman, GR ;
Guyatt, GH .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2005, 330 (7482) :88-91
[10]   An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods [J].
Devereaux, PJ ;
Choi, PTL ;
El-Dika, S ;
Bhandari, M ;
Montori, VM ;
Schünemann, HJ ;
Garg, AX ;
Busse, JW ;
Heels-Ansdell, D ;
Ghali, WA ;
Manns, BJ ;
Guyatt, GH .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2004, 57 (12) :1232-1236