Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in prehabilitation: a scoping review.
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
Author Information
Dominique Engel: Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Giuseppe Dario Testa: Department of Anesthesia, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Daniel I McIsaac: Clinical Epidemiology Program, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Francesco Carli: Department of Anesthesia, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Daniel Santa Mina: Department of Anesthesia and Pain Management, Faculty of Medicine, Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Gabriele Baldini: Section of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Celena Scheede-Bergdahl: Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Stéphanie Chevalier: School of Human Nutrition, McGill University, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, H9X 3V9, Canada.
Linda Edgar: Prehabilitation Clinic, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Christian M Beilstein: Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Markus Huber: Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Julio F Fiore: Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, H3G 1A4, Canada.
Chelsia Gillis: Department of Anesthesia, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada. chelsia.gillis@mcgill.ca.
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). CONCLUSION: Altogether, existing prehabilitation trials report approximately half of the checklist items recommended by methodological and intervention reporting guidelines. Reporting practices may improve with the development of a reporting checklist specific to prehabilitation interventions.
