Quality of research and quality of reporting in elbow surgery trials

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are high in the hierarchy of scientific evidence, but possible sources of bias should be identified or even excluded. This systematic review assessed the methodologic quality and the quality of reporting of the RCTs on the treatment of elbow pathology.

Methods: A systematic review of RCTs was performed on the treatment of elbow pathology. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant trials. Thirty-five of the initial 540 articles being an (pseudo) RCT on invasive treatment of elbow pathology in humans were included. These were scored with the use of an adapted Checklists to Evaluate A Report of a Nonpharmacologic Trial (CLEAR-NPT). To assess quality of reporting, points were administered to the articles based on the results from CLEAR-NPT list. The highest possible score for quality is 26 points.

Results: The average quality score was 18.1 points (range, 10-25 points). The mean scores were 19.5 for trials published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine, 19.8 for those published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, and 20.3 for those published in the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery.

Conclusions: The most important finding was that the overall quality and the quality of reporting has not improved over the years and that the overall quality of the selected studies and the quality of reporting in these trials is not related to the journal they are published in.