Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The five Cochrane reviews of the evidence from randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials cover all the key interventions on this topic. No trial is excluded on the basis of its trial report(s). All materials identified for each included trial are evaluated and referenced.
Objectives: To examine the potential impact on the available evidence of the inclusion of various trial materials in the Cochrane reviews of treatment interventions for distal radial fracture in adults. The reliability of the evidence was not assessed in this study.
Methods: After establishment of the aims of the study, a data extraction form was prepared and the trial materials of all 117 included studies were reviewed. The results were cross-checked with the relevant sections of the Cochrane reviews. The data were tabulated and analysed using Excel.
Results: The 117 trials included a total of 9719 participants and tested 61 treatment comparisons. Twelve trials were not reported in English. Their exclusion would have resulted in the loss of 7% (688/9719) of study participants, and four comparisons. Eighteen trials were only published in conference abstracts. Their exclusion would have resulted in the loss of 18% (1790/9719) of study participants, and six comparisons. Supplementary abstract reports were identified for 25 of the 99 fully reported trials. In only six cases were the abstracts fully consistent with the full trial report. The information supplied in the abstracts was crucial for three trials. There were two or more published trial reports available for 10 trials. The presence of other trial reports was not acknowledged in six cases. Other trial materials included correspondence; this provided valuable information in three out of six trials.
Conclusions: For this topic area, important evidence would have been lost if the trials reported only in conference abstracts or non-English reports had been excluded. Important information would have also been lost by failing to include supplementary trial materials. These findings demonstrate the need to include all trial materials in Cochrane reviews.
Objectives: To examine the potential impact on the available evidence of the inclusion of various trial materials in the Cochrane reviews of treatment interventions for distal radial fracture in adults. The reliability of the evidence was not assessed in this study.
Methods: After establishment of the aims of the study, a data extraction form was prepared and the trial materials of all 117 included studies were reviewed. The results were cross-checked with the relevant sections of the Cochrane reviews. The data were tabulated and analysed using Excel.
Results: The 117 trials included a total of 9719 participants and tested 61 treatment comparisons. Twelve trials were not reported in English. Their exclusion would have resulted in the loss of 7% (688/9719) of study participants, and four comparisons. Eighteen trials were only published in conference abstracts. Their exclusion would have resulted in the loss of 18% (1790/9719) of study participants, and six comparisons. Supplementary abstract reports were identified for 25 of the 99 fully reported trials. In only six cases were the abstracts fully consistent with the full trial report. The information supplied in the abstracts was crucial for three trials. There were two or more published trial reports available for 10 trials. The presence of other trial reports was not acknowledged in six cases. Other trial materials included correspondence; this provided valuable information in three out of six trials.
Conclusions: For this topic area, important evidence would have been lost if the trials reported only in conference abstracts or non-English reports had been excluded. Important information would have also been lost by failing to include supplementary trial materials. These findings demonstrate the need to include all trial materials in Cochrane reviews.