COMPLICATION REPORTING IN ORTHOPAEDIC TRIALS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS

Abstract

Background: The nature and frequency of complications during or after orthopaedic interventions represent critical clinical information for safety evaluations, which are required in the development or improvement of medical procedures and devices. However, neither uniform definitions nor established classifications about the reporting of complications exist. So complication reporting, even in orthopaedic trials is still up to the surgeons perception and understanding. The goal of this systematic review was to check whether essential data are consistently provided by the authors in the assessment of incidence, severity and characteristics of complications related to orthopaedic interventions in randomized controlled trials.

Methods: Five major, peer-reviewed orthopaedic journals were screened for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between January 2006 and July 2007. All relevant papers were obtained, anonymized and evaluated by two external reviewers. A checklist consisting of three main parts: definition, evaluation and reporting was developed and applied for the assessment of complication reporting in RCTs. The results were stratified for the main area of the trial.

Results: One hundred and twelve RCTs meeting our inclusion criteria were identified. The majority of RCTs (n = 73) reported on surgical treatment methods, with most of the trials focussing on arthroplasty (38%); surgical fracture treatment and other surgical interventions accounted for 13% each. Although complications were included as trial outcomes in two thirds of the studies, clear definitions of anticipated complications were provided at least partly in only two trials of fracture treatment and six other trials. It remained unclear whether authors considered the specific events “death”, “mal-union”, “impaired function” and “re-operation” as complications; “impaired function” was not considered as a complication in 93% of the trials and “re-operation” events were considered in only 50% of the trials dealing with surgical fracture treatments. In 83% of RCTs, the identity of the person or group assessing the complications was unknown and in a further 8%, this process was implemented by the treating surgeon. This review did not identify any trial involving a Data Safety Review Board for assessment and classification of complications.

Conclusions: Due to the lack of homogeneity among the published trials, improvement in the reporting of complications is necessary. A standardized protocol for assessing and reporting complications should be developed and endorsed by professional organizations and most importantly, clinical investigators.