World journal of urology · 2020
The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials and experimental animal studies for urethroplasty.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Albersheim Jacob, Smith Daniel W, Pariser Joseph J, Dahm Philipp
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To assess the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials and experimental animal studies examining urethroplasty in reconstructive urological surgery literature.
METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search to identify all urethroplasty-related RCTs examining humans as well as animal models. We used the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and the Animals in Research: Reporting in vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines to assess reporting quality. Two reviewers performed data abstraction independently and in duplicate. We then generated descriptive statistics including CONSORT (0-25) and ARRIVE (0-20) summary scores using the median and interquartile range.
RESULTS: Twenty studies were ultimately included; 14 randomized controlled trials and 6 experimental animal studies. All studies were two-armed, parallel group studies. Median sample sizes (and interquartile range) of the human and animal studies were 48.5 (31.8-53.8) and 18 (15.3-27.5), respectively. The median CONSORT and ARRIVE scores were 10.0 (8.75-12.63) and 7.97 (6.79-8.64), respectively. Human randomized controlled trials did not consistently report the method of allocation concealment (6/14; 42.9%), blinding (2/14; 14.3%), or discuss the generalizability of the results (6/14; 42.9%). Animal studies infrequently reported why a given animal model was used (1/6; 16.7%), how they were allocated to groups (0/6; 0%) or what the experimental primary and secondary outcomes were (0/6; 0%).
CONCLUSIONS: Urethroplasty literature is marked by a paucity of both randomized controlled trials and experimental design animal studies. The existing studies are inconsistently reported and are therefore of uncertain methodological quality.
METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search to identify all urethroplasty-related RCTs examining humans as well as animal models. We used the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and the Animals in Research: Reporting in vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines to assess reporting quality. Two reviewers performed data abstraction independently and in duplicate. We then generated descriptive statistics including CONSORT (0-25) and ARRIVE (0-20) summary scores using the median and interquartile range.
RESULTS: Twenty studies were ultimately included; 14 randomized controlled trials and 6 experimental animal studies. All studies were two-armed, parallel group studies. Median sample sizes (and interquartile range) of the human and animal studies were 48.5 (31.8-53.8) and 18 (15.3-27.5), respectively. The median CONSORT and ARRIVE scores were 10.0 (8.75-12.63) and 7.97 (6.79-8.64), respectively. Human randomized controlled trials did not consistently report the method of allocation concealment (6/14; 42.9%), blinding (2/14; 14.3%), or discuss the generalizability of the results (6/14; 42.9%). Animal studies infrequently reported why a given animal model was used (1/6; 16.7%), how they were allocated to groups (0/6; 0%) or what the experimental primary and secondary outcomes were (0/6; 0%).
CONCLUSIONS: Urethroplasty literature is marked by a paucity of both randomized controlled trials and experimental design animal studies. The existing studies are inconsistently reported and are therefore of uncertain methodological quality.