Use of Sham Interventions in Randomized Controlled Trials in Neurosurgery

Abstract

Background The use of sham interventions in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is essential to minimize bias. However, their use in surgical RCTs is rare and subject to ethical concerns. To date, no studies have looked at the use of sham interventions in RCTs in neurosurgery.

Methods This study evaluated the frequency, type, and indication of sham interventions in RCTs in neurosurgery. RCTs using sham interventions were also characterized in terms of design and risk of bias.

Results From a total of 1,102 identified RCTs in neurosurgery, 82 (7.4%) used sham interventions. The most common indication for the RCT was the treatment of pain (67.1%), followed by the treatment of movement disorders and other clinical problems (18.3%) and brain injuries (12.2%). The most used sham interventions were saline injections into spinal structures (31.7%) and peripheral nerves (10.9%), followed by sham interventions in cranial surgery (26.8%), and spine surgery (15.8%). Insertion of probes or catheters for a sham lesions was performed in 14.6%.

In terms of methodology, most RCTs using sham interventions were double blinded (76.5%), 9.9% were single blinded, and 13.6% did not report the type of blinding.

Conclusion Sham-controlled RCTs in neurosurgery are feasible. Most aim to minimize bias and to evaluate the efficacy of pain management methods, especially in spinal disorders. The greatest proportion of sham-controlled RCTs involves different types of substance administration routes, with sham surgery the less commonly performed.

Keywords

randomized controlled trials - neurosurgery - bias - sham

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 17. Juni 2019

Angenommen: 30. Juli 2019

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
21. Mai 2020

• References

• 1 Ciccozzi M, Menga R, Ricci G. , et al. Critical review of sham surgery clinical trials: confounding factors analysis. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2016; 12: 21-26
• 2 Probst P, Grummich K, Harnoss JC. , et al. Placebo-controlled trials in surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016; 95 (17) e3516
• 3 Brim RL, Miller FG. The potential benefit of the placebo effect in sham-controlled trials: implications for risk-benefit assessments and informed consent. J Med Ethics 2013; 39 (11) 703-707
• 4 Rogers W, Hutchison K, Skea ZC, Campbell MK. Strengthening the ethical assessment of placebo-controlled surgical trials: three proposals. BMC Med Ethics 2014; 15: 78
• 5 Horng S, Miller FG. Ethical framework for the use of sham procedures in clinical trials. Crit Care Med 2003; 31 (3, Suppl): S126-S130
• 6 Macklin R. The ethical problems with sham surgery in clinical research. N Engl J Med 1999; 341 (13) 992-996
• 7 Miller FG. Sham surgery: an ethical analysis. Am J Bioeth 2003; 3 (04) 41-48
• 8 Campbell MK, Entwistle VA, Cuthbertson BH. , et al; KORAL study group. Developing a placebo-controlled trial in surgery: issues of design, acceptability and feasibility. Trials 2011; 12: 50
• 9 Gelijns AC, Ascheim DD, Parides MK, Kent KC, Moskowitz AJ. Randomized trials in surgery. Surgery 2009; 145 (06) 581-587
• 10 Cook JA. The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials. Trials 2009; 10: 9
• 11 Wartolowska K, Collins GS, Hopewell S. , et al. Feasibility of surgical randomised controlled trials with a placebo arm: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2016; 6 (03) e010194
• 12 Wartolowska K, Judge A, Hopewell S. , et al. Use of placebo controls in the evaluation of surgery: systematic review. BMJ 2014; 348: g3253
• 13 Louw A, Diener I, Fernández-de-Las-Peñas C, Puentedura EJ. Sham surgery in orthopedics: a systematic review of the literature. Pain Med 2017; 18 (04) 736-750
• 14 Faggion Jr CM. Evaluating the risk of bias of a study. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2015; 15 (04) 164-170
• 15 Agha RA, Camm CF, Edison E, Orgill DP. The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery needs improvement: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2013; 66 (04) 447-452
• 16 Voineskos SH, Coroneos CJ, Ziolkowski NI. , et al. A systematic review of surgical randomized controlled trials: part i. risk of bias and outcomes: common pitfalls plastic surgeons can overcome. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 137 (02) 696-706
• 17 Zhai X, Cui J, Wang Y. , et al. Quality of reporting randomized controlled trials in five leading neurology journals in 2008 and 2013 using the modified “risk of bias” tool. World Neurosurg 2017; 99: 687-694.e7
• 18 Hare KB, Lohmander LS, Roos EM. The challenge of recruiting patients into a placebo-controlled surgical trial. Trials 2014; 15: 167
• 19 Frobell RB, Lohmander LS, Roos EM. The challenge of recruiting patients with anterior cruciate ligament injury of the knee into a randomized clinical trial comparing surgical and non-surgical treatment. Contemp Clin Trials 2007; 28 (03) 295-302
• 20 Swift TL. Sham surgery trial controls: perspectives of patients and their relatives. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2012; 7 (03) 15-28