Early large treatment effects can arise in small studies, which lessen as more data accumulate. This study aimed to retrospectively examine whether early treatment effects occurred for two multicentre orthopaedic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and explore biases related to this. Included RCTs were ProFHER (PROximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation), a two-arm study of surgery versus non-surgical treatment for proximal humerus fractures, and UK FROST (United Kingdom Frozen Shoulder Trial), a three-arm study of two surgical and one non-surgical treatment for frozen shoulder. To determine whether early treatment effects were present, the primary outcome of Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) was compared on forest plots for: the chief investigator’s (CI) site to the remaining sites, the first five sites opened to the other sites, and patients grouped in quintiles by randomization date. Potential for bias was assessed by comparing mean age and proportion of patients with indicators of poor outcome between included and excluded/non-consenting participants.Aims
Methods
It is unusual, if not unique, for three major research papers concerned with the management of the fractured neck of femur (FNOF) to be published in a short period of time, each describing large prospective randomized clinical trials. These studies were conducted in up to 17 countries worldwide, involving up to 80 surgical centers and include large numbers of patients (up to 2,900) with FNOF. Each article investigated common clinical dilemmas; the first paper comparing total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for FNOF, the second as to whether ‘fast track’ care offers improved clinical outcomes and the third, compares sliding hip with multiple cancellous hip screws. Each paper has been deemed of sufficient quality and importance to warrant publication in The Lancet or the New England Journal of Medicine. Although ‘premier’ journals, they only occationally contain orthopaedic studies and thus may not be routinely read by the busy orthopaedic/surgical clinician of any grade. It is therefore our intention with this present article to accurately summarize and combine the results of all three papers, presenting, in our opinion, the most important clinically relevant facts. Cite this article:
High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs)
evaluating surgical therapies are fundamental to the delivery of
evidence-based orthopaedics. Orthopaedic clinical trials have unique
challenges; however, when these challenges are overcome, evidence
from trials can be definitive in its impact on surgical practice.
In this review, we highlight several issues that pose potential
challenges to orthopaedic investigators aiming to perform surgical randomised
controlled trials. We begin with a discussion on trial design issues,
including the ethics of sham surgery, the importance of sample size,
the need for patient-important outcomes, and overcoming expertise
bias. We then explore features surrounding the execution of surgical
randomised trials, including ethics review boards, the importance
of organisational frameworks, and obtaining adequate funding. Cite this article:
