The use of systematic reviews to justify orthopaedic trauma randomized controlled trials: A cross-sectional analysis.
Clinical trial
Cross-sectional analysis
Epidemiology
Meta-analysis
Meta-research
Methods
Orthopaedics
Randomized controlled trials
Research waste
Systematic review
Journal
Injury
ISSN: 1879-0267
Titre abrégé: Injury
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 0226040
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2020
Feb 2020
Historique:
received:
27
10
2019
accepted:
04
11
2019
pubmed:
13
11
2019
medline:
2
12
2020
entrez:
13
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Orthopaedic trauma is one of the largest surgical fields in medicine, and as such, requires the latest evidence to ensure the best standard of care. Systematic reviews are an invaluable resource that compiles an exhaustive summary of the most current evidence on a given clinical question. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the use of systematic reviews as justification in conducting randomized controlled trials published in high impact orthopaedic trauma journals. We analyzed randomized controlled trials published in the top three high impact orthopaedic trauma journals between 2015 and 2018. We performed data extraction blind, independent, and in duplicative manner to ensure the validity of the findings. For each trial, data was extracted by the number of systematic reviews cited in each clinical trial and whether or not the study used a systematic review as justification for conducting the trial. A subgroup of general orthopaedic clinical trials were included for comparison. Of 144 articles retrieved, 128 were included. Overall, 71.1% (91/128; [95% CI, 63.2-78.9]) of included orthopaedic trauma randomized controlled trials referenced a systematic review and 28.9% (37/128) of studies did not cite a systematic review. Of the 91 trials that referenced a systematic review, 33.0% (30/91; [95% CI, 23.3-42.6]) of RCTs cited a systematic review as trial justification, whether that be "verbatim" or "inferred". "Verbatim" justifications occurred in 20.0% (6/30; [95% CI, 5.7-34.3]) of included trauma RCTs that cited a systematic review as justification for conducting the trial and "inferred" justifications occurred in 80.0% (24/30; [95% CI, 65.7-94.3]). Systematic reviews are frequently cited in orthopaedic trauma RCTs but are not commonly cited as justification for conducting a clinical trial. Ideally, evidentiary uncertainty regarding a research question should be established by existing literature through a systematic review to reduce research waste.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31711650
pii: S0020-1383(19)30700-4
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.11.004
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
212-217Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest We declare no conflicts of interest.