MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990665899 · doi:10.1002/lary.28404

Reporting of Clinical Trial Interventions Published in Leading Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Journals

2019· article· en· W2990665899 on OpenAlexaff
Trevor Torgerson, Austin Johnson, Samuel Jellison, Margo Tanghetti, J Langley, Lily H. P. Nguyen, Matt Vassar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Laryngoscope · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersOklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology
KeywordsHead and neck surgeryOtorhinolaryngologyMedicineGeneral surgeryPsychological interventionHead and neckClinical trialSurgeryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) play a crucial role in advancing patient care within otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (OTL-HNS), yet studies have shown the reporting of these trials needs improvement. Here, we evaluate the completeness of intervention reporting of RCTs in OTL-HNS and evaluate whether the publication of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist has influenced intervention reporting. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cross-Sectional Analysis. METHODS: We searched PubMed for RCTs published in top OTL-HNS journals in two cohorts, one before the release of the TIDieR and one afterward. A sample of 300 RCTs was randomly selected and screened for inclusion. Once the dataset was finalized, we extracted trial characteristics and assessed each trial's adherence to the TIDieR checklist. We then used descriptive characteristics, a generalized estimated equation, time-series analysis, and a two-sample t test to analyze our data. RESULTS: After screening was completed, 173 RCTs were included in our analysis. Of these RCTs, 103 (59.5%) showed <60% adherence to the TIDieR checklist. We found a slight increase in adherence to TIDieR items after the checklist was released, although this was not statistically significant (P = .91). In addition, we found that trials with a crossover study design or multiple interventions and those that provided a Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials statement were associated with greater adherence to the TIDieR checklist. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of OTL-HNS RCTs included in our analysis showed suboptimal reporting factors related to the TIDieR checklist. Requiring a TIDieR statement and automating the journal requirements process for all OTL-HNS clinical trials would be a worthwhile, efficient approach to improving research quality and ultimately patient care within OTL-HNS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 130:E507-E514, 2020.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.720
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.920
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: Reporting
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7200.920
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.012
Bibliometrics0.0400.034
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0150.013
Open science0.0080.010
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.840
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.229 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainReporting
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

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe LaryngoscopeSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207