A Historical Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery

Jeffrey Kay · Muzammil Memon · Darren L. de SA · Nicole Simunovic · Volker Musahl · Freddie H. Fu +2 more

11 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Knee injuries and reconstruction techniques Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this systematic review was to comprehensively assess the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relating to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Specifically, this review explored factors related to the quality of the RCTs and trends in the quality of reporting over time. METHODS: The online databases PubMed, Ovid (MEDLINE), and Embase were used to search for all RCTs on the topic of ACL reconstruction from database inception until April 14, 2016. The quality of reporting was evaluated using the Detsky quality index and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist for reporting trials of nonpharmacologic treatments. A multivariate regression analysis was used to assess predictors of quality reporting. RESULTS: The online search yielded 2,933 articles, 412 of which met the inclusion criteria and were assessed for quality of reporting. There was a significant (p < 0.0001) increase in the number of RCTs published over time. The mean Detsky score (and standard deviation) across all included RCTs was 68.9% ± 13.2%. The strongest predictors of quality reporting were the inclusion of a CONSORT flow diagram (β-coefficient, 10.0; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.45 to 11.61; p < 0.0001) and being published in the year 2009 or later (β-coefficient, 5.2; 95% CI: 3.87 to 6.45; p < 0.0001). The factors demonstrating the greatest improvement over time were the inclusion of a full description of the randomization procedure (p = 0.001) and prospective calculation of the sample size (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: There has been a significant increase in both the quantity and quality of RCTs relating to ACL reconstruction over time. Specifically, the reporting of a methodologically sound randomization process and prospective calculation of sample size have significantly improved in recent years. However, since the year 2009, the number of trials and reporting in these trials has remained relatively consistent. The use of a CONSORT flow diagram is a strong predictor of high-quality reporting.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

References

1996Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?2008Extending the CONSORT Statement to Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatment: Explanation and Elaboration 1999The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis 2002Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions 1992Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis 2000Which clinical studies provide the best evidence?2002THE QUALITY OF REPORTING OF RANDOMIZED TRIALS IN THE JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY FROM 1988 THROUGH 2000 2007The Quality of Reporting of Orthopaedic Randomized Trials with Use of a Checklist for Nonpharmacological Therapies

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.