Skip to content

Protocol for a systematic review of reporting standards of anaesthetic interventions in randomised controlled trials

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Original languageEnglish
Article number034372
Number of pages4
JournalBMJ Open
Issue number1
DateAccepted/In press - 18 Dec 2019
DatePublished (current) - 13 Jan 2020


Introduction: There is significant variation in how anaesthesia is defined and reported in clinical research. This lack of standardisation complicates the interpretation of published evidence and planning of future clinical trials. This systematic review will assess the reporting of anaesthesia as an intervention in randomised controlled trials (RCT) against the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Non-Pharmacological Treatments (CONSORT-NPT) framework.

Methods and analysis: Online archives of the top six journals ranked by impact factor for anaesthesia and the top three general medicine and general surgery journals will be systematically hand searched over a 42-month time period to identify RCTs describing the use of anaesthetic interventions for any invasive procedure. All modes of anaesthesia and anaesthesia techniques will be included. All study data, including the type of anaesthetic intervention described, will be extracted in keeping with the CONSORT-NPT checklist. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarise general study details including types/modes of anaesthetic interventions, and reporting standards of the trials.

Ethics and dissemination: No ethical approval is required. The results will be used to inform a funding application to formally standardise general, local, regional anaesthesia and sedation for use in clinical research. The systematic review will be disseminated via peer-reviewed manuscript and conferences.

    Research areas

  • anaesthetics, protocols & guidelines, surgery

Download statistics

No data available



  • Full-text PDF (final published version)

    Rights statement: This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via BMJ Publishing Group at . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Final published version, 382 KB, PDF document

    Licence: CC BY-NC


View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups