Has the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in thoracic surgery improved?

To evaluate the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the thoracic surgery literature according to Consolidated Standard for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) and to determine predictors of quality.

All RCTs published in four principal journals between 1998 and 2013 were identified in PubMed. Two independent reviewers assessed each trial using the CONSORT checklist (1996) with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Mean checklist scores were compared between trials published from 1998 to 2005 and 2006 to 2013. The κ statistic for inter-rater agreement was calculated. Stepwise multivariable linear regression was then performed to identify independent predictors of quality.

After 2 rounds of review, 203 of the 2838 identified articles met inclusion criteria. The overall κ coefficient was 0.95 indicating very good agreement between reviewers. The mean CONSORT score was significantly higher in 2006-13 [mean 10.8; 95% confidence interval (CI): 10.3-11.2] than in 1998-2005 (mean 9.3; 95% CI: 8.7-9.6). On multivariable analysis, there was strong evidence of an increased mean CONSORT score in studies comparing non-surgical interventions, multicentre trials, publications after 2006, studies with increased number of authors and studies funded by industries.

Our study suggests that the quality of reporting in the thoracic surgery literature is improving with time and is predicted by factors including number of authors, multicentre trials, type of comparison, time period of publication and industry sponsorship. Ongoing efforts should be made to improve the quality of reporting in thoracic surgery.