MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081052974 · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000000810

Completion and Publication Rates of Randomized Controlled Trials in Surgery

2014· article· en· W2081052974 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Rachel Rosenthal, Benjamin Kasenda, Salome Dell‐Kuster, Erik von Elm, John J. You, Anette Blümle, Yuki Tomonaga, Ramon Saccilotto, Alain Amstutz, Theresa Bengough, Joerg J Meerpohl, Mihaela Stegert, Kari A.O. Tikkinen, Ignacio Neumann, Alonso Carrasco‐Labra, Markus Faulhaber, Sohail Mulla, Dominik Mertz, Elie A. Akl, Dirk Bassler, Jason W. Busse, Ignacio Ferreira‐González, François Lamontagne, Alain Nordmann, Viktoria Gloy, Kelechi Kalu Olu, Heike Raatz, Lorenzo Moja, Shanil Ebrahim, Stefan Schandelmaier, Xin Sun, Per Olav Vandvik, Bradley C. Johnston, Martin A. Walter, Bernard Burnand, Matthias Schwenkglenks, Lars G. Hemkens, Heiner C. Bucher, Gordon Guyatt, Matthias Briel

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersHamilton Health Sciences FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMitacsDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftHamilton Health SciencesSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDiscontinuationMedicineRandomized controlled trialOdds ratioConfidence intervalLogistic regressionRelative riskClinical trialSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Objective: To investigate the prevalence of discontinuation and nonpublication of surgical versus medical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to explore risk factors for discontinuation and nonpublication of surgical RCTs. Background: Trial discontinuation has significant scientific, ethical, and economic implications. To date, the prevalence of discontinuation of surgical RCTs is unknown. Methods: All RCT protocols approved between 2000 and 2003 by 6 ethics committees in Canada, Germany, and Switzerland were screened. Baseline characteristics were collected and, if published, full reports retrieved. Risk factors for early discontinuation for slow recruitment and nonpublication were explored using multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results: In total, 863 RCT protocols involving adult patients were identified, 127 in surgery (15%) and 736 in medicine (85%). Surgical trials were discontinued for any reason more often than medical trials [43% vs 27%, risk difference 16% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5%–26%); P = 0.001] and more often discontinued for slow recruitment [18% vs 11%, risk difference 8% (95% CI: 0.1%–16%); P = 0.020]. The percentage of trials not published as full journal article was similar in surgical and medical trials (44% vs 40%, risk difference 4% (95% CI: −5% to 14%); P = 0.373). Discontinuation of surgical trials was a strong risk factor for nonpublication (odds ratio = 4.18, 95% CI: 1.45–12.06; P = 0.008). Conclusions: Discontinuation and nonpublication rates were substantial in surgical RCTs and trial discontinuation was strongly associated with nonpublication. These findings need to be taken into account when interpreting surgical literature. Surgical trialists should consider feasibility studies before embarking on full-scale trials. We evaluated early discontinuation and nonpublication of surgical trials approved in Canada, Germany, and Switzerland. Forty-three percent were stopped early, 18% for slow recruitment. Trial discontinuation was strongly associated with nonpublication. These findings are relevant when interpreting surgical literature, and surgical trialists should consider feasibility studies before starting full-scale trials.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.780
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.772
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7800.772
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0290.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.930
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.363 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations66
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of SurgerySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207