Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241566
DC FieldValue
dc.titleQuality of reporting of cranial irradiation techniques in randomized controlled trials of primary brain tumors: A systematic review
dc.contributor.authorTan, T.H.
dc.contributor.authorChen, D.
dc.contributor.authorSoon, Y.Y.
dc.contributor.authorTey, J.C.S.
dc.date.accessioned2021-08-25T14:20:01Z
dc.date.available2021-08-25T14:20:01Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.citationTan, T.H., Chen, D., Soon, Y.Y., Tey, J.C.S. (2020). Quality of reporting of cranial irradiation techniques in randomized controlled trials of primary brain tumors: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 15 (11-Nov) : e0241566. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241566
dc.identifier.issn19326203
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/199419
dc.description.abstractBackground To assess the quality of reporting of cranial irradiation (CR) techniques in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of primary brain tumors. Methods We searched PubMed and EMBASE for RCTs of primary brain tumors, published from January 1999 to November 2019 which included CR as one of the intervention arms. We assessed the initial RCTs report on whether they reported the prespecified ten criteria for CR technique adequately. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine the factors that were predictive of adequate quality of reporting. Results We found 85 eligible trial reports. There was significant variability in the quality of reporting among the included studies. Total radiotherapy (RT) dose and fractionation schedule were reported adequately in more than 90% of the included trials. The organs at risk dose constraints, treatment verification procedures and presence or absence of deviations in RT treatment planning and delivery were reported adequately in less than 30% of included trials. Twenty-three trials (27%) reported seven criteria or more adequately. Multivariable analysis showed that trials conducted by cooperative groups, published RT quality assurance results and having a low risk of bias in the methodological quality have higher odds of having adequate quality in reporting of CR technique (judged as adequate reporting in seven criteria or more). Conclusions The quality of reporting on CR techniques in the RCTs of primary brain tumors is variable and suboptimal. Guidelines should be introduced to improve clarity and ensure consistency in the quality of reporting. © 2020 Tan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
dc.publisherPublic Library of Science
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourceScopus OA2020
dc.typeReview
dc.contributor.departmentMEDICINE
dc.description.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0241566
dc.description.sourcetitlePLoS ONE
dc.description.volume15
dc.description.issue11-Nov
dc.description.pagee0241566
Appears in Collections:Elements
Staff Publications

Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
10_1371_journal_pone_0241566.pdf595.28 kBAdobe PDF

OPEN

NoneView/Download

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons