Quality of reporting of cranial irradiation techniques in randomized controlled trials of primary brain tumors: A systematic review.

• Main Authors: Teng Hwee Tan, Desiree Chen, Yu Yang Soon, Jeremy Chee Seong Tey
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2020-01-01
• Series: PLoS ONE
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241566

<h4>Background</h4>To assess the quality of reporting of cranial irradiation (CR) techniques in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of primary brain tumors.<h4>Methods</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>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).<h4>Conclusions</h4>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.