The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials and experimental animal studies for urethroplasty

Objectives To assess the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials and experimental animal studies examining urethroplasty in reconstructive urological surgery literature. Methods We performed a comprehensive literature search to identify all urethroplasty-related RCTs examining humans as well as animal models. We used the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and the Animals in Research: Reporting in vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines to assess reporting quality. Two reviewers performed data abstraction independently and in duplicate. We then generated descriptive statistics including CONSORT (0-25) and ARRIVE (0-20) summary scores using the median and interquartile range. Results Twenty studies were ultimately included; 14 randomized controlled trials and 6 experimental animal studies. All studies were two-armed, parallel group studies. Median sample sizes (and interquartile range) of the human and animal studies were 48.5 (31.8-53.8) and 18 (15.3-27.5), respectively. The median CONSORT and ARRIVE scores were 10.0 (8.75-12.63) and 7.97 (6.79-8.64), respectively. Human randomized controlled trials did not consistently report the method of allocation concealment (6/14; 42.9%), blinding (2/14; 14.3%), or discuss the generalizability of the results (6/14; 42.9%). Animal studies infrequently reported why a given animal model was used (1/6; 16.7%), how they were allocated to groups (0/6; 0%) or what the experimental primary and secondary outcomes were (0/6; 0%). Conclusions Urethroplasty literature is marked by a paucity of both randomized controlled trials and experimental design animal studies. The existing studies are inconsistently reported and are therefore of uncertain methodological quality.

Automated summary

The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials and animal studies on urethroplasty in reconstructive urological surgery literature is generally low, with inconsistent results and uncertain methodological quality.