Dataset Information

Registration and publication of emergency and elective randomised controlled trials in surgery: a cohort study from trial registries.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Emergency surgical practice constitutes 50% of the workload for surgeons, but there is a lack of high quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in emergency surgery. This study aims to establish the differences between the registration, completion and publication of emergency and elective surgical trials.

Design

The clinicaltrials.gov and ISRCTN.com trials registry databases were searched for RCTs between 12 July 2010 and 12 July 2012 using the keyword 'surgery'. Publications were systematically searched for in Pubmed, MEDLINE and EMBASE.

Participants

Results with no surgical interventions were excluded. The remaining results were manually categorised into 'emergency' or 'elective' and 'surgical' or 'adjunct' by two reviewers.

Primary outcome measures

Number of RCTs registered in emergency versus elective surgery.

Secondary outcome measures

Number of RCTs published in emergency versus elective surgery; reasons why trials remain unpublished; funding, sponsorship and impact of published articles; number of adjunct trials registered in emergency and elective surgery.

Results

2700 randomised trials were registered. 1173 trials were on a surgical population and of these, 414 trials were studying surgery. Only 9.4% (39/414) of surgical trials were in emergency surgery. The proportion of trials successfully published did not significantly differ between emergency and elective surgery (0.46 vs 0.52; mean difference (MD) -0.06, 95%?CI -0.24 to 0.12). Unpublished emergency surgical trials were statistically equally likely to be terminated early compared with elective trials (0.33 vs 0.16; MD -0.18, 95%?CI -0.06 to 0.41). Low accrual accounted for a similar majority in both groups (0.43 vs 0.46; MD -0.04, 95%?CI -0.48 to 0.41). Unpublished trials in both groups were statistically equally likely to still be planning publication (0.52 vs 0.71; MD -0.18, 95%?CI -0.43 to 0.07).

Conclusion

Fewer RCTs are registered in emergency than elective surgery. Once trials are registered both groups are equally likely to be published.

SUBMITTER: Morley RL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6042627 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Registration and publication of emergency and elective randomised controlled trials in surgery: a cohort study from trial registries.

Morley Rachael L RL Edmondson Matthew J MJ Rowlands Ceri C Blazeby Jane M JM Hinchliffe Robert J RJ

BMJ open 20180707 7

<h4>Objectives</h4>Emergency surgical practice constitutes 50% of the workload for surgeons, but there is a lack of high quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in emergency surgery. This study aims to establish the differences between the registration, completion and publication of emergency and elective surgical trials.<h4>Design</h4>The clinicaltrials.gov and ISRCTN.com trials registry databases were searched for RCTs between 12 July 2010 and 12 July 2012 using the keyword 'surgery'. Publ ...[more]

PMID: 29982216

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPostoperative complications impact on early and long-term patients' outcome. Appropriate perioperative fluid management is pivotal in this context; however, the most effective perioperative fluid management is still unclear. The enhanced recovery after surgery pathways recommend a perioperative zero-balance, whereas recent findings suggest a more liberal approach could be beneficial. We conducted this trial to address the impact of restrictive vs. liberal fluid approaches on overall postoperative complications and mortality.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid) and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register databases, published from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2019. We included RCTs enrolling adult patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery and comparing the use of restrictive/liberal approaches enrolling at least 15 patients in each subgroup. Studies involving cardiac, non-elective surgery, paediatric or obstetric surgeries were excluded.ResultsAfter full-text examination, the metanalysis finally included 18 studies and 5567 patients randomised to restrictive (2786 patients; 50.0%) or liberal approaches (2780 patients; 50.0%). We found no difference in the occurrence of severe postoperative complications between restrictive and liberal subgroups [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.009 (- 0.02; 0.04); p value = 0.62; I2 (95% CI) = 38.6% (0-66.9%)]. This result was confirmed also in the subgroup of five studies having a low overall risk of bias. The liberal approach was associated with lower overall renal major events, as compared to the restrictive [risk difference (95% CI) = 0.06 (0.02-0.09); p value = 0.001]. We found no difference in either early (p value = 0.33) or late (p value = 0.22) postoperative mortality between restrictive and liberal subgroups CONCLUSIONS: In major abdominal elective surgery perioperative, the choice between liberal or restrictive approach did not affect overall major postoperative complications or mortality. In a subgroup analysis, a liberal as compared to a restrictive perioperative fluid policy was associated with lower overall complication renal major events, as compared to the restrictive.Trial registrationCRD42020218059; Registration: February 2020, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=218059 .

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether offering free mailed nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and telephone counselling to smokers on elective surgery waiting lists increases quitting before surgery.Design, settingRandomised, controlled trial at Frankston Hospital, a public tertiary referral hospital in Melbourne.ParticipantsAdult smokers added to elective surgery waiting lists for operations at least ten days in the future, 1 April 2019 - 3 April 2020.InterventionIn addition to normal care, intervention participants received a brochure on the risks of low frequency smoking, an offer of Quitline call-back registration, and an offer of mailed NRT according to reported daily smoking: 1-9 cigarettes/day, 2 mg lozenges; 10-15/day, 7-14 mg patches [three weeks] and 2 mg lozenges; > 15/day, 7-21 mg patches [five weeks] and 2 mg lozenges.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome: quitting at least 24 hours before surgery, verified by exhaled carbon monoxide testing.Secondary outcomesquitting at least four weeks before surgery, adverse events, and (for those who had quit before surgery) abstinence three months after surgery.ResultsOf 748 eligible participants (control, 363; intervention, 385), 516 (69%) had undergone elective surgery when the trial was terminated early (for COVID-19-related reasons) (intervention group, 274; control group, 242). 122 of the 385 intervention participants (32%) had accepted the offer of cessation support. The proportions of intervention participants who quit at least 24 hours before surgery (18% v 9%; odds ratio [OR], 1.97; 95% CI, 1.22-3.15) or at least four weeks before surgery (9% v 4%; OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.08-4.50) were larger than for the control group. Three months after surgery, 27 of 58 intervention (47%) and 12 of 25 control participants (48%) who quit before surgery reported not smoking in the preceding seven days. No major adverse events were reported.ConclusionUptake of free mailed NRT and Quitline support by smokers on elective surgery waiting lists was good, and offering additional support was associated with higher proportions of smokers quitting before surgery.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12619000032156 (prospective).

Project description:BackgroundMandatory trial registration, and later results reporting, were proposed to mitigate selective clinical trial publication and outcome reporting. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendments Act (FDAAA) was enacted by Congress on September 27, 2007, requiring the registration of all non-phase I clinical trials involving FDA-regulated medical interventions and results reporting for approved drugs. The association between FDAAA enactment and the registration, results reporting, and publication bias of neuropsychiatric trials has not been studied.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of all efficacy trials supporting FDA new drug approvals between 2005 to 2014 for neuropsychiatric indications. Trials were categorized as pre- or post-FDAAA based on initiation and/or completion dates. The main outcomes were the proportions of trials registered and reporting results in ClinicalTrials.gov, and the degree of publication bias, estimated using the relative risks pre- and post-FDAAA of both the publication of positive vs non-positive trials, as well as of publication of positive vs non-positive trials without misleading interpretations. Registration and results reporting proportions were compared pre- and post-FDAAA using the two-tailed Fisher exact test, and the degrees of publication bias were compared by calculating the ratio of relative risks (RRR) for each period.ResultsThe FDA approved 37 new drugs for neuropsychiatric indications between 2005 and 2014 on the basis of 142 efficacy trials, of which 101 were pre-FDAAA and 41 post-FDAAA. Post-FDAAA trials were significantly more likely to be registered (100% vs 64%; p < 0.001) and report results (100% vs 10%; p < 0.001) than pre-FDAAA trials. Pre-FDAAA, positive trials were more likely to be published (relative risk [RR] = 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17-1.99; p = 0.002) and published without misleading interpretations (RR = 2.47; CI = 1.57-3.73; p < 0.001) than those with non-positive results. In contrast, post-FDAAA positive trials were equally likely to have been published (RR = 1; CI = 1-1, p = NA) and published without misleading interpretations (RR = 1.20; CI = 0.84-1.72; p = 0.30). The likelihood of publication bias pre-FDAAA vs post-FDAAA was greater for positive vs non-positive trials (RRR = 1.52; CI = 1.16-1.99; p = 0.002) and for publication without misleading interpretations (RRR = 2.06, CI = 1.17-3.61, p = 0.01).ConclusionsThe enactment of FDAAA was followed by significantly higher proportions of trials that were registered and reporting results on ClinicalTrials.gov and significantly lower degrees of publication bias among trials supporting recent FDA approval of drugs for neuropsychiatric indications.

Project description:BackgroundPostoperative ileus after colorectal surgery is a frequent problem that significantly delays recovery, increases perioperative costs, and negatively impacts on daily life, physical and psychosocial functioning, and wellbeing. We investigated the effect of acupuncture at different single acupoint combined with standard care on postoperative ileus.MethodsIn this single-centre, three-arm, prospective, randomised trial, we enrolled patients with primary colorectal cancer undergoing elective colorectal resection at Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Science in Beijing, China. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either electroacupuncture (EA) at ST36 or ST25 combined with standard care (two EA groups) once daily from post-operative days 1-4, or standard care alone (standard care group). The co-primary outcomes were time to first flatus and time to defecation assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with Chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR1900027466.FindingBetween Nov 15, 2019, and Sep 30, 2020, 129 patients were assessed for eligibility, 105 patients (35 patients per group) were enrolled and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. After receiving EA at ST36, the time to first flatus and defecation were shorter (between-group difference -10.98 [97.5% CI -21.41 to -0.56], p = 0·02 for flatus; -25.41 [-47.89 to -2.93], p = 0·02 for defecation). However, we did not observe a significant difference in time to first flatus and defecation between the EA at ST25 group and standard care group (between-group difference -5.54 [97.5% CI -15.78 to 4.70], p = 0·26 for flatus; -17.69 [-40.33 to 4.95], p = 0·08 for defecation). There were no serious adverse events.InterpretationCompared with standard care alone, standard care combined with EA at ST36, but not ST25, significantly enhances bowel function recovery in a postoperative setting to patients with colorectal cancer with laparoscopic elective colorectal resection.FundingThe National Key R&D Program of China (No: 2019YFC1712100) and the National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars (No:81825024).

Project description:BackgroundScientific research regarding male-female differences in ascending aortic surgery is scarce. The objective of this study was to identify male-female differences in presentation, treatment and peri-operative outcome in elective ascending aortic surgery.MethodsElective ascending aortic surgery procedures that took place in the Netherlands between 01/01/2013-31/12/2017 were identified from the Netherlands Heart Registration. Male-female differences in presentation, treatment characteristics, and in-hospital mortality and morbidity were explored.ResultsThe study population consisted of 887 females (31%) and 1,972 males (69%). Females were older (median age 67 versus 62 years, P<0.001), more often had chronic lung disease (12.3% versus 9.1%, P=0.011), New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III-IV (21.5% versus 15.5%, P=0.003), and less often a history of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (3.2% versus 5.0%, P=0.033). Isolated supracoronary aortic replacement was performed in 47.7% of females versus 30.6% of males (P<0.001), and ascending aorta with root replacement in 40.6% of females versus 56.7% of males (P<0.001). Females more often underwent concomitant interventions of the aortic arch (33.1% versus 20.2%, P<0.001) and the mitral valve (8.2% versus 5.2%, P=0.002), and less often concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (14.4% versus 19.1%, P=0.002). Overall, in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in females (5.1% versus 2.7%, P=0.003). In multivariable regression analysis, being female was an independent risk factor for in-hospital mortality [odds ratio (OR) 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-2.37].ConclusionsThis nation-wide cohort shows clear differences between females and males in patient presentation, procedural characteristics, in-hospital outcomes, and risk factors for in-hospital mortality in elective ascending aortic surgery. Further exploration of these differences, and of modifiable within-male and within-female risk factors, may offer great opportunities in improving treatment and thereby outcomes for both males and females.

Dataset Information

Registration and publication of emergency and elective randomised controlled trials in surgery: a cohort study from trial registries.

Objectives

Design

Participants

Primary outcome measures

Secondary outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Registration and publication of emergency and elective randomised controlled trials in surgery: a cohort study from trial registries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets