Improved Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Urologic Literature

Abstract

BackgroundWell-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have the potential to provide high-quality evidence to inform questions of therapy and prevention, but this potential is contingent on the use of appropriate methods and transparent reporting. ObjectiveTo systematically assess the quality of urology RCT reporting and identify trends over time. Design, setting, and participantsAll RCTs published in four leading urology journals in 2013 were identified and compared to a prior analysis of studies from 1996 and 2004. Two reviewers abstracted data based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist. Outcome measurements and statistical analysisA summary reporting score (range: 0–22) for each study was determined. Mean overall scores for 1996, 2004, and 2013 were compared using analysis of variance. We used χ2 to compare the reporting frequency of individual criteria. Results and limitationsMean CONSORT scores for RCTs were 15.6±2.0 in 2013 (n=82), 12.0±0.3 in 2004 (n=87), and 10.2±0.3 in 1996 (n=65); p<0.01. Key deficiencies remain in reporting methods of allocation concealment and group assignment (selection bias), and blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors (performance and detection bias). Study limitations are potential reviewer bias resulting from lack of journal deidentification and the relatively low number of studies reviewed. ConclusionsThere has been a substantial improvement in reporting quality of RCTs in urology since CONSORT. Some methodological criteria remain underreported, and increased efforts are necessary to further this improvement. Patient summaryTreatment decisions are often based on data from randomized controlled trials. We looked at whether these trials in urology are transparent in reporting their design and conduct using a framework known as the CONSORT criteria and found significant improvements over time. Some areas of deficiency remain, and our paper aimed to highlight these drawbacks to promote continued high-quality research.