The methodologic quality of clinical trials on regional anesthesia for cataract surgery

David S Friedman, Eric B Bass, Lisa Lubomski, Lee A. Fleisher, John H. Kempen, Jeffrey Magaziner, Michael Sprintz, Karen A Robinson, Oliver D Schein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: To assess the methodologic quality of published randomized trials of regional anesthesia management strategies for cataract surgery. Design: Literature review and analysis. Method: We performed a systematic search of the literature to identify all articles pertaining to regional anesthesia for cataract surgery on adults. Overall quality scores and scores for individual methodologic domains were based on the evaluations of two investigators experienced in methodologic research who independently reviewed all relevant articles using a quality abstraction form. Main Outcome Measures: Study quality in each of five domains: representativeness, bias and confounding, intervention description, outcomes and follow-up, and statistical quality and interpretation. Results: Eighty-two randomized clinical trials were identified with a mean overall quality score of 44%. The mean domain scores ranged from 37% for representativeness to 58% for outcomes and follow-up. Forty percent or fewer studies received the maximum score for reporting the setting, the population, and the start and end dates; describing the inclusion and exclusion criteria; adequately randomizing subjects; and adequately masking individuals participating in the study. Key outcomes were often inadequately reported, including the distribution of patient-reported pain scores and the mean surgical time. Conclusions: Greater attention to methodologic quality and detailed reporting of study results will improve the ability of readers to interpret the results of clinical trials assessing regional anesthesia for cataract surgery.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)530-541
Number of pages12
JournalOphthalmology
Volume108
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2001

Fingerprint

Conduction Anesthesia
Cataract
Clinical Trials
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Aptitude
Operative Time
Randomized Controlled Trials
Research Personnel
Pain
Research
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

The methodologic quality of clinical trials on regional anesthesia for cataract surgery. / Friedman, David S; Bass, Eric B; Lubomski, Lisa; Fleisher, Lee A.; Kempen, John H.; Magaziner, Jeffrey; Sprintz, Michael; Robinson, Karen A; Schein, Oliver D.

In: Ophthalmology, Vol. 108, No. 3, 2001, p. 530-541.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6c545f31fe5f471bb8da6e0acabfe82c,
title = "The methodologic quality of clinical trials on regional anesthesia for cataract surgery",
abstract = "Objective: To assess the methodologic quality of published randomized trials of regional anesthesia management strategies for cataract surgery. Design: Literature review and analysis. Method: We performed a systematic search of the literature to identify all articles pertaining to regional anesthesia for cataract surgery on adults. Overall quality scores and scores for individual methodologic domains were based on the evaluations of two investigators experienced in methodologic research who independently reviewed all relevant articles using a quality abstraction form. Main Outcome Measures: Study quality in each of five domains: representativeness, bias and confounding, intervention description, outcomes and follow-up, and statistical quality and interpretation. Results: Eighty-two randomized clinical trials were identified with a mean overall quality score of 44{\%}. The mean domain scores ranged from 37{\%} for representativeness to 58{\%} for outcomes and follow-up. Forty percent or fewer studies received the maximum score for reporting the setting, the population, and the start and end dates; describing the inclusion and exclusion criteria; adequately randomizing subjects; and adequately masking individuals participating in the study. Key outcomes were often inadequately reported, including the distribution of patient-reported pain scores and the mean surgical time. Conclusions: Greater attention to methodologic quality and detailed reporting of study results will improve the ability of readers to interpret the results of clinical trials assessing regional anesthesia for cataract surgery.",
author = "Friedman, {David S} and Bass, {Eric B} and Lisa Lubomski and Fleisher, {Lee A.} and Kempen, {John H.} and Jeffrey Magaziner and Michael Sprintz and Robinson, {Karen A} and Schein, {Oliver D}",
year = "2001",
doi = "10.1016/S0161-6420(00)00596-0",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "108",
pages = "530--541",
journal = "Ophthalmology",
issn = "0161-6420",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The methodologic quality of clinical trials on regional anesthesia for cataract surgery

AU - Friedman, David S

AU - Bass, Eric B

AU - Lubomski, Lisa

AU - Fleisher, Lee A.

AU - Kempen, John H.

AU - Magaziner, Jeffrey

AU - Sprintz, Michael

AU - Robinson, Karen A

AU - Schein, Oliver D

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - Objective: To assess the methodologic quality of published randomized trials of regional anesthesia management strategies for cataract surgery. Design: Literature review and analysis. Method: We performed a systematic search of the literature to identify all articles pertaining to regional anesthesia for cataract surgery on adults. Overall quality scores and scores for individual methodologic domains were based on the evaluations of two investigators experienced in methodologic research who independently reviewed all relevant articles using a quality abstraction form. Main Outcome Measures: Study quality in each of five domains: representativeness, bias and confounding, intervention description, outcomes and follow-up, and statistical quality and interpretation. Results: Eighty-two randomized clinical trials were identified with a mean overall quality score of 44%. The mean domain scores ranged from 37% for representativeness to 58% for outcomes and follow-up. Forty percent or fewer studies received the maximum score for reporting the setting, the population, and the start and end dates; describing the inclusion and exclusion criteria; adequately randomizing subjects; and adequately masking individuals participating in the study. Key outcomes were often inadequately reported, including the distribution of patient-reported pain scores and the mean surgical time. Conclusions: Greater attention to methodologic quality and detailed reporting of study results will improve the ability of readers to interpret the results of clinical trials assessing regional anesthesia for cataract surgery.

AB - Objective: To assess the methodologic quality of published randomized trials of regional anesthesia management strategies for cataract surgery. Design: Literature review and analysis. Method: We performed a systematic search of the literature to identify all articles pertaining to regional anesthesia for cataract surgery on adults. Overall quality scores and scores for individual methodologic domains were based on the evaluations of two investigators experienced in methodologic research who independently reviewed all relevant articles using a quality abstraction form. Main Outcome Measures: Study quality in each of five domains: representativeness, bias and confounding, intervention description, outcomes and follow-up, and statistical quality and interpretation. Results: Eighty-two randomized clinical trials were identified with a mean overall quality score of 44%. The mean domain scores ranged from 37% for representativeness to 58% for outcomes and follow-up. Forty percent or fewer studies received the maximum score for reporting the setting, the population, and the start and end dates; describing the inclusion and exclusion criteria; adequately randomizing subjects; and adequately masking individuals participating in the study. Key outcomes were often inadequately reported, including the distribution of patient-reported pain scores and the mean surgical time. Conclusions: Greater attention to methodologic quality and detailed reporting of study results will improve the ability of readers to interpret the results of clinical trials assessing regional anesthesia for cataract surgery.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035119375&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035119375&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0161-6420(00)00596-0

DO - 10.1016/S0161-6420(00)00596-0

M3 - Article

C2 - 11237907

AN - SCOPUS:0035119375

VL - 108

SP - 530

EP - 541

JO - Ophthalmology

JF - Ophthalmology

SN - 0161-6420

IS - 3

ER -