Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Int Urogynecol J. 2011 Sep;22(9):1117-25. doi: 10.1007/s00192-011-1426-z. Epub 2011 Apr 12.

The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in pelvic organ prolapse.

Author information

1
Department of Urology, Centro Hospitalar do Porto, Porto, Portugal. vcavadas@gmail.com

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS:

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) must comply with the strict rules of design and conduct and their reporting should reflect it. Our aim was to evaluate how the quality of RCT reporting in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) has evolved.

METHODS:

RCTs in POP published between 1997 and 2010 were retrieved through a PubMed search. The quality of reporting was assessed by applying the 2010 revised Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. Appropriate statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS:

Forty-one RCTs were identified for review. The implementation of randomization, recruitment, blinding, outcomes with effect size and precision, trial registration, and full protocol availability were reported in less than half of the trials. Comparing two periods (1997-2006 and 2007-2010), there was no improvement in the quality of reporting for any of the CONSORT criteria.

CONCLUSIONS:

RCTs in POP are scarce. The quality of reporting is suboptimal in many aspects and has not improved in recent years.

PMID:
21484364
DOI:
10.1007/s00192-011-1426-z
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Springer
    Loading ...
    Support Center