Systematic review of the quantity and quality of randomized clinical trials in pancreatic surgery

Author:

Hüttner F J12ORCID,Capdeville L1,Pianka F12,Ulrich A1,Hackert T1ORCID,Büchler M W1,Probst P12ORCID,Diener M K12

Affiliation:

1. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

2. Study Centre of the German Surgical Society, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

Abstract

Abstract Background RCTs are considered the reference standard in clinical research. However, surgical RCTs pose specific challenges and therefore numbers have been lower than those for randomized trials of medical interventions. In addition, surgical trials have often been associated with poor methodological quality. The objective of this study was to evaluate the evolution of quantity and quality of RCTs in pancreatic surgery and to identify evidence gaps. Methods PubMed, CENTRAL and Web of Science were searched systematically. Predefined data were extracted and organized in a database. Quantity and quality were compared for three intervals of the study period comprising more than three decades. Evidence maps were constructed to identify gaps in evidence. Results The search yielded 8210 results, of which 246 trials containing data on 26 154 patients were finally included. The number of RCTs per year increased continuously from a mean of 2·8, to 5·7 and up to 13·1 per year over the three intervals of the study. Most trials were conducted in Europe (46·3 per cent), followed by Asia (35·0 per cent) and North America (14·2 per cent). Overall, the quality of RCTs was moderate; however, with the exception of blinding, all domains of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool improved significantly in the later part of the study. Evidence maps showed lack of evidence from RCTs for operations other than pancreatoduodenectomy and for specific diseases such as neuroendocrine neoplasms or intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms. Conclusion The quantity and quality of RCTs in pancreatic surgery have increased. Evidence mapping showed gaps for specific procedures and diseases, indicating priorities for future research.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Surgery

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3