In the realm of pediatric urology, and medical research at large, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) set the benchmark for establishing the efficacy of clinical interventions. This standard is often referenced in literature; however, a recent review suggests that the meticulous nature of RCT methodology and reporting quality in vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) studies may not be as robust as one might assume.

A pivotal study published in the “Journal of Pediatric Urology” (DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.02.014) conducted by Gnech et al. (2020) provides a stark investigation into the landscape of RCT reporting quality within the pediatric VUR discipline. This article dives into the findings and implications of this comprehensive and critical review [1].

Methodology and Objectives

The research team embarked on a systematic search across databases MEDLINE® and Embase® to sieve out RCTs in the VUR literature from the year 2000 to 2016. The subsequent scrutinization process followed the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist, created to guide authors in ensuring clarity and comprehensiveness in reporting RCTs [2]. The checklist comprises 37 items, encapsulating aspects such as methodology, data analysis, and interpretation of results.

Articles filtered through the search were then evaluated based on their overall quality of reporting score (OQS), calculated using a percentage system, with the total number of checklist items present in each study divided by the maximum achievable score of 34. Signifying transparency and completeness, the articles were further labeled as low quality (<40%), moderate quality (40-70%), and high quality (>70%) against a modified assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR) checklist.

Riveting Findings

Out of an initial 2052 matches, a staggering 98% were excluded due to methodology or content discrepancies, leaving 22 suitable candidates. The mean OQS was disheartening, standing at a mere 46%. A granular look at the statistics unraveled that 41% were of low quality, 50% of moderate quality, and a concerning 9% reached the high-quality threshold.

The research did mention an intriguing variable that significantly influenced the OQS – biostatistician support. RCTs backed by biostatistics expertise demonstrated markedly higher reporting quality compared to those without such support.

An additional layer of analysis introduced by this research was the “Fragility Index” (FI), a metric that quantifies how many additional events are needed in a study group to change the results from statistically significant to non-significant. Unfortunately, upon evaluating the seven studies with initially significant positive findings, the mean FI was discovered to be 5.8, reflecting the potential volatility of these results.

The Interpretation and Way Forward

It becomes evident that the mean OQS of the vetted VUR RCTs was suboptimal. Results were “fragile,” suggesting that the findings’ stability and reliability are questionable. Such a status quo calls for strict adherence to reporting guidelines such as the CONSORT statement [3]. Mandating a minimum of 50% checklist adherence could pave the way toward enhanced quality and accountability in RCT reporting.

The calculation of the fragility index transpires as a crucial tool, imbuing objectivity in the assessment of published trials’ robustness, thus aiding better interpretation of research data.


1. Vesicoureteral Reflux Research
2. Quality of Reporting in RCTs
3. Clinical Trial Robustness
4. Pediatric Urology Studies
5. CONSORT Statement in Urology


1. Gnech M, et al. (2020). Quality of reporting and fragility index for randomized controlled trials in the vesicoureteral reflux literature: where do we stand? Journal of Pediatric Urology, 15(3), 204-212.
2. Schulz KF, et al. (2010). CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. BMJ, 340, c332.
3. Moher D, et al. (2010). The CONSORT Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA, 285(15), 1987-1991.
4. Ioannidis JPA. (2016). Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful. PLoS Med, 13(6), e1002049.
5. Glasziou P, et al. (2007). When are randomized trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise. BMJ, 334(7589), 349–351.

This analysis accentuates a pressing need within the pediatric urology community and broader clinical research sector to fortify the integrity of RCTs, ensuring that the “gold standard” they represent continues to glimmer with unwavering credibility. Embracing rigorous reporting standards and comprehending the significance of metrics like the fragility index could vastly improve the efficacy of clinical research and patient care in urology and beyond.