Reporting quality analysis of randomized controlled trials in Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology: A methodological assessment

Abstract

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered to provide high levels of evidence to optimize decision-making for patient care, although there can be a risk bias in their design, conduct, and analysis. Quality assessment of RCTs is necessary to assess whether they provide reliable results with little bias.

Materials and Methods: We assessed the reporting quality of RCTs published in the Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology (JNA) between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2017 using the Jadad scale, van Tulder scale, and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool (CCRBT).

Results: We identified 130 RCTs and 570 original articles. Among the 130 RCTs, 92 (70.8%) presented an appropriate blinding method, and 70 (53.8%) described an appropriate allocation method. For the entire period, the percentages of high-quality reporting articles were 71.5%, 73.1%, and 13.8% in the Jadad scale, van Tulder scale, and CCRBT assessments, respectively. There was an improvement in the van Tulder scale over time (coefficients [95% confidence interval {CI}]=0.08 [0.01-0.15]; P=0.02). Appropriate reporting of allocation in the Jadad scale (coefficients [95% CI]=1.68 [1.28-2.07]; P<0.001) and van Tulder scale (coefficients [95% CI]=2.34 [1.97-2.70]; P<0.001), and reporting of blinding in the Jadad (coefficients [95% CI]=1.09 [0.66-1.52]; P<0.001) and van Tulder scores (coefficients [95% CI]=1.85 [1.45- 2.25]; P<0.001), were associated with high-quality reporting.

Conclusions: The ratio of high-quality reporting RCTs in JNA was consistently high compared with other journals. Thorough consideration of allocation concealment during the peer review process can further improve the reporting quality of RCTs in JNA.