• Lucy Elliott, Karen Coulman, Natalie S Blencowe, Mahim Qureshi, Sethina Watson, Ronelle Mouton, and Robert J Hinchliffe.
• Centre for Surgical Research, University of Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK lucy.elliott@nbt.nhs.uk.
• BMJ Open. 2020 Jan 13; 10 (1): e034372.

IntroductionThere 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 AnalysisOnline 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 DisseminationNo 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.Prospero Registration NumberCRD42019141670.© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

9 keywords...

hide…