F-056HAS THE QUALITY OF REPORTING OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS IN THORACIC SURGERY IMPROVED?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the thoracic surgery literature according to Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) and to determine predictors of quality. Methods: All RCTs published in four principle journals between 1998 and 2013 were identified in PubMed. Two independent reviewers assessed each trial using the CONSORT checklist (1996 Edition) with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Mean checklist score was compared between trials published from 1998-2005 and 2006-2013. The kappa statistic for inter-rater agreement was calculated. Mean scores from the two periods were compared using the Students' test with 95% confidence intervals. Univariable linear regression was then performed to identify predictors of quality (time period, number of authors, journal, geographic region, multi versus single centre, anatomic area of thoracic surgery, and industry sponsorship). Results: After two rounds of review, 203 of the 2838 identified articles met the inclusion criteria. The overall kappa coefficient was 0.95 indicating very good agreement between reviewers. The mean CONSORT score was significantly higher in 2006-2013 (mean 10.8; 95% CI: 10.3-11.2) than 1998-2005 (mean 9.3; 95% CI: 8.7-9.6). There was strong evidence that mean CONSORT score increased with increased number of authors and industry sponsorship, and varied significantly according to journal and geographic region. Mean score was not influenced by area of thoracic surgery, although there was a trend toward higher scores in the transplant literature. The mean score was 2.01 points lower in single centred trials compared to multicentred trials (95% CI: -2.88 to -1.15). Conclusions: Our study suggests that the quality of reporting in the thoracic surgery literature is improving with time and is predicted by factors including composition and geographic origin of the research group, industry sponsorship and journal of publication. Efforts should be made to improve quality of reporting in thoracic surgery. Disclosure: No significant relationships.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.302 | 0.617 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".