SP 11.01 Standardisation of the Reporting of Comparator Interventions in Surgical Trials: A Scoping Review
Anna Williamson, Daniel Baker, Melissa Calderin, Madison Gill, Matthew Lee, Natalie BlencoweAbstract
Aims
Clear reporting of both trial and comparator interventions is essential for interpreting surgical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). When reporting lacks clarity, it limits interpretation of the results. This scoping review aimed to explore current practice in reporting comparator interventions and to develop a practical reporting framework to facilitate standardisation.
Methods
RCTs evaluating at least one invasive procedure were identified by hand-searching the top five medical and surgical journals between August 2023 and July 2025. Data was extracted into Microsoft Excel by three reviewers. Key data extraction points included trial and comparator intervention, length of intervention description (in words), and clarity of description. Interventions were categorised using a modified framework approach to develop a preliminary typology, iteratively refined through sequential analyses. PRECIS-2 assessments were also completed.
Results
A total of 128 RCTs were analysed. Median trial intervention description length was 72 (range 6–389) words versus 47 (range 6–173) words for comparators. The median trial-to-comparator description ratio was 1.72 (range 0.19–28.25), and 34% of comparators were described in fewer than 30 words. The median PRECIS-2 score was 3.92 (range 2.94–4.79), with one trial scoring below 3. A reporting framework was developed and trialled on an additional 30 papers to confirm applicability to practice.
Conclusions
Comparator interventions are consistently described with less detail than trial interventions, undermining interpretation and reproducibility. Greater clarity in comparator reporting is needed. The proposed typology offers a practical framework to improve the design, reporting, and appraisal of surgical trials.