Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in prehabilitation: a scoping review

作者：Dominique Engel, Giuseppe Dario Testa, Daniel I. McIsaac, Francesco Carli, Daniel Santa Mina, Gabriele Baldini, Celena Scheede‐Bergdahl, Stéphanie Chevalier, Linda Edgar, Christian M. Beilstein, Markus Huber, Julio F. Fiore, Chelsia Gillis · 发表于：Perioperative Medicine · 年份：2023 · DOI：10.1186/s13741-023-00338-8 · 被引用次数：31 · 研究领域：Meta-analysis and systematic reviews、Health Policy Implementation Science、Delphi Technique in Research

BACKGROUND: Inadequate study reporting precludes interpretation of findings, pooling of results in meta-analyses, and delays knowledge translation. While prehabilitation interventions aim to enhance candidacy for surgery, to our knowledge, a review of the quality of reporting in prehabilitation has yet to be conducted. Our objective was to determine the extent to which randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of prehabilitation are reported according to methodological and intervention reporting checklists. METHODS: Eligibility criteria: RCTs of unimodal or multimodal prehabilitation interventions. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: search was conducted in March 2022 using MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane. CHARTING METHODS: identified studies were compared to CONSORT, CERT & Modified CERT, TIDieR, PRESENT, and CONSORT-SPI. An agreement ratio (AR) was defined to evaluate if applicable guideline items were correctly reported. Data were analyzed as frequency (n, %) and mean with standard deviation (SD). RESULTS: We identified 935 unique articles and included 70 trials published from 1994 to 2022. Most prehabilitation programs comprised exercise-only interventions (n = 40, 57%) and were applied before oncologic surgery (n = 32, 46%). The overall mean AR was 57% (SD: 20.9%). The specific mean ARs were as follows: CONSORT: 71% (SD: 16.3%); TIDieR: 62% (SD:17.7%); CERT: 54% (SD: 16.6%); Modified-CERT: 40% (SD:17.8%); PRESENT: 78% (SD: 8.9); and CONSORT-SPI: 47% (SD: 22.1...