Methodology and reporting in studies of local recurrence after curative excision of the rectum for cancer.

Abstract

Widely varying rates have been reported in the extensive literature published in the English language on local recurrence after curative excision of rectal carcinoma. These variations may be attributable to differences in the case mix of pathological factors influencing recurrence, differences in surgical technique or expertise, differences in the administration of adjuvant therapy and various combinations of these. They may also arise from methodological differences among studies. This paper reviews the adequacy of methodology and reporting in 21 recent studies of local recurrence after curative resection of rectal cancer. Many flaws in reporting and apparent inadequacies in methodology were identified. On an index of 26 criteria examined, eight studies scored no more than 8 and only three studies scored more than 11. To date, the value of reports of local recurrence rates following curative excision of rectal cancer has been limited by inadequacies in documentation and methodology. Suggestions are made for preferred procedures to be followed in the reporting of future studies.