Critical Appraisal of Randomized Controlled Trials on Unruptured Brain Arteriovenous Malformations

Abstract

Objective: Brain arteriovenous malformations management remains controversial despite the numerous, available treatment options. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) theoretically provide the strongest evidence for the assessment of any therapeutic intervention. However, poorly designed RCTs may be associated with biases, inaccuracies, and misleading conclusions. The purpose of our study is to assess reporting transparency and methodological quality of the existing RCTs. Methods: A search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane databases. The search was limited to English literature. We included all published RCTs reporting on the management of unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations. The eligible studies were evaluated by 5 blinded raters with the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 statement and the risk-of-bias 2 tool. The inter-rater agreement was assessed with the Fleiss' Kappa. Results: A randomized trial of unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations (ARUBA) and treatment of brain arteriovenous malformations (TOBAS) trials were evaluated. ARUBA achieved high CONsolidated standards of reporting trials compliance, while TOBAS showed a moderate one. In ARUBA the introduction, discussion, and other information sections reached the highest compliance rate (80%–86%). The lowest rates were recorded in the results and the methods (62% and 73%, respectively). The inter-rater agreement was moderate to substantial (54.1% to 78.4%). All the examined studies demonstrated a high risk of bias, mainly related to ill-defined intended interventions, missing outcome data, and selection of the reported results. Conclusions: Our study confirmed the high risk of bias mainly attributed to several protocol violations, deviations, minimal external validity and selection, attrition, and allocation biases of the ARUBA trial. Analysis of the TOBAS trial revealed a moderate overall reporting clarity and a high risk of bias. © 2022 Elsevier Inc.