The Journal of Urology
Volume 183, Issue 5 , Pages 1693-1697, May 2010

Reporting of Harm in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in the Urological Literature

  • Rodney H. Breau

      Affiliations

    • Division of Urology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    • Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence: Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Ottawa University Hospital, 1053 Carling St., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 4E9 (telephone: 613-761-4500; FAX: 613-761-5305).
  • ,
  • Isabelle Gaboury

      Affiliations

    • Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • ,
  • Charles D. Scales Jr.

      Affiliations

    • Division of Urologic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
  • ,
  • Susan F. Fesperman

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
  • ,
  • James D. Watterson

      Affiliations

    • Division of Urology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  • ,
  • Philipp Dahm

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida

Received 7 October 2009 published online 17 March 2010.

Purpose

Evidence-based decision making seeks to balance potential benefits and harms (adverse effects) of health care interventions for an individual patient. We determined the prevalence and completeness of harm reporting in randomized controlled trials in the urological literature.

Materials and Methods

We performed a systematic literature search of all randomized controlled trials of therapeutic interventions published in The Journal of Urology®, Urology®, European Urology and BJU International in 1996 and 2004. Each article was reviewed by 2 independent investigators for 10 harm reporting criteria recommended by the CONSORT group. Discrepancies were settled by discussion and consensus.

Results

A total of 152 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, of which 109 (72%) reported adverse event outcomes. The median number of harm reporting criteria satisfied improved marginally from 1996 to 2004 (2.8 to 3.3, p = 0.36). A large proportion of studies failed to address harm in the abstract (55, 36%), introduction (71, 47%) and discussion (52, 34%). Few studies specified which adverse events were evaluated (21, 14%), when harm information was collected (32, 21%) or how the harm was attributed to the intervention (5, 3%). Only 48 (32%) articles provided reasons for patient withdrawal and 1 in 5 (33, 22%) reported the severity of adverse events.

Conclusions

Randomized controlled trials published in the urological literature contain significant deficiencies in adverse event reporting. These findings suggest the need for reporting standards for harm in urological journals. Improvements in adverse event reporting would permit a more balanced assessment of interventions and would enhance evidence-based urological practice.

Key Words: evidence-based medicine, data interpretation, statistical, adverse effects, randomized controlled trials as topic

Abbreviations and Acronyms: CONSORT, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, RCT, randomized controlled trial

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 See Editorial on page 1671.

PII: S0022-5347(10)00031-5

doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.01.030

Refers to article:

  • Standardization of Reporting Surgical Complications—Are We Ready? , 17 March 2010

    Tracey L. Krupski
    The Journal of Urology May 2010 (Vol. 183, Issue 5, Pages 1671-1672)

The Journal of Urology
Volume 183, Issue 5 , Pages 1693-1697, May 2010