{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03722373012795657, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015897634742148118, 'mean_word_length': 5.45, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Quality evaluation of randomized controlled trials reports of laparoscopy compared with open colorectal resection for colorectal cancer

Objectives: Previously, there were no data looking at the quality evaluation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on effect comparison of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for colorectal cancer in China. Here, we evaluate the completeness and transparency of RCT reports in this field. Methods: The following databases were searched: Medline, EMbase, SCI Expanded, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Chinese Biological Medicine Database, VIP database and Wan Fang databases) to search RCT reports on the effect comparison of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for colorectal cancer in China. Our study evaluated the reporting quality of RCTs based on 22 standards of Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement. Two reviewers responded with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to each standard to judge whether the authors had reported or had recorded concrete details of the reports accomplished in accordance with the requirement of each standard. Results: A total of 40 relevant RCTs were included in the final analysis. For the ‘Title and abstract’, only three articles (7.5%) could be identified directly from its title as the report of RCTs. For the ‘Methods’, only three articles (7.5%) applied the method of random allocation of sequences; only two articles (5%) mentioned the type of randomization or gave the description of the mechanism of allocation concealment; no article referred the concrete implementation of random method. Only one article (2.5%) applied the method of blinding or sample size calculation; no article had analysis about the metaphase of an experiment or an explanation of its interruption. For ‘results’, only one article (2.5%) described participant flow, primary and secondary outcomes with estimated effect size or ancillary analyses. Only 13 articles (32.5%) showed baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, 10 (25%) referred to intention-to-treat analysis, and 12 (30%) mentioned important harms or unintended effects. For the ‘discussion’, only eight articles (20%) gave the description of trials’ limitations and 13 (32.5%) presented the generalizability (external validity, applicability) of the trial findings. Conclusion: The quality of the RCT reports on effect comparison of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for colorectal cancer in China is poor. The reporting of RCTs in this field should be standardized, according to the specifications of the CONSORT 2010.