Reporting of Complications in Retinal Detachment Surgical Trials
Zheng Yang Xu,Augusto Azuara-Blanco,Kazuaki Kadonosono,Timothy Murray,Sundaram Natarajan,Samantha Sii,William Smiddy,David H. Steel,Thomas J. Wolfensberger,Noemi Lois,Fernando J Arevalo,Alexandre Assi,George W Aylward,Gaetano Barile,Caroline Baumal,Augusto Azuara-Blanco,Bopp Silvia,Ulrik C Christensen,Sven Crafoord,Marc de Smet,Rohan W Essex,Amani Fawzi,Marta Figueroa,Christina Flaxel,Justin Gottlieb,Richard Haynes,Roxane Hillier,Timothy Jackson,Antonia M Joussen,Kazuaki Kadonosono,Louis Kruger,Yannick Le Mer,Jennifer Lim,Anat Lowenstein,Noemi Lois,Jose Lorenzo-Carrero,Vicente Martinez-Castillo,Timothy Murray,Sundaram Natarajan,Kelvin Rivett,Diego Ruiz-Casas,Shohista Saidkasimova,Lara Sandri,Shimpei Sato,Manoharan Shunmugam,Samantha Sii,William Smiddy,Kurt Spiteri-Cornish,David H Steel,Paul Tornambe,Muralidharan Upendran,Xavier Valldeperas,Jan C van Meurs,Marc Veckener,Louisa Wickham,Thomas J Wolfensberger,Zheng Yang Xu,David Yorston,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2021.1836
IF: 8.253
2021-08-01
JAMA Ophthalmology
Abstract:Question What is the quality of reporting of harms in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) surgery?Findings A systematic review of RCTs in RRD surgery using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Extension for Harms checklist was conducted. The median number of checklist items reported was 8 (range, 0-15), and infrequently reported criteria included distinguishing between expected and unexpected adverse events and use of a validated instrument to report adverse event severity.Meaning These results suggest there are key areas that need improvement in the reporting of complications of RRD surgical trials.Importance Knowledge on the frequency and severity of complications in surgical trials for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is essential to determine whether surgical procedures are developed and compared adequately, taking into account not only efficacy but also harms.Objective To review standards of reporting of complications in recent randomized clinical trials of RRD surgery.Evidence Review This systematic review included randomized clinical trials on RRD surgery published between January 2008 and January 2021 in Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science Core Collection databases. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles retrieved were reviewed for eligibility by 2 independent authors. Eligible studies were evaluated against checklist items from the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Extension for Harms criteria by 2 independent authors, and discrepancies were resolved by discussion with a third author.Findings Fifty studies were included. The median number of checklist items fulfilled was 8 (range, 0-15), of a possible total of 18. Frequently reported items were discussions balanced with regard to efficacy and adverse events (42 studies [84%]) and inclusions of harm-associated timing of data collection (41 studies [82%]). The least frequently reported items were distinctions between expected and unexpected adverse events (1 study [2%]) and mentions of the use of a validated instrument to report adverse event severity (4 studies [8%]). Frequency of complications was commonly reported (29 studies [58%]) in contrast with complication severity (10 studies [20%]).Conclusions and Relevance This review suggests that severity of complications of RRD surgery has been infrequently quantified and reported in randomized clinical trials and potentially represents an important area of improvement in future RRD surgical trials.
ophthalmology