ArticleBMJ open2026
MedDRA adoption and adverse event reporting quality in gastrointestinal and abdominal surgery randomised controlled trials: a cross-sectional analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to establish the frequency of Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) utilisation in gastrointestinal and abdominal surgical trials, identify predictors of its adoption and quantify the association between MedDRA use and adverse event (AE) reporting quality as measured by Completeness scores, registry-publication Concordance and overall Transparency indices.
designCross-sectional analysis of matched randomised controlled trial registry-publication pairs.
participants116 gastrointestinal and abdominal surgery randomised controlled trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with results posted between September 2009 and December 2024 and an associated peer-reviewed publication. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were differences in AE reporting quality between MedDRA-documenting and non-documenting trials, measured using Harms Reporting Completeness Score (0-8), Concordance Score (0-7) and Harms Transparency Index (0-15). Secondary outcomes included prevalence of MedDRA adoption and predictors of MedDRA documentation via univariable logistic regression.
resultsAmong 116 included trials, only 22 (18.8%) explicitly documented MedDRA use. Industry-funded trials (OR=29.32, 95% CI 8.94 to 118.50, p<0.001) and those with at least one US site (OR=4.59, 95% CI 1.22 to 30.02, p=0.050) demonstrated significantly higher rates of MedDRA adoption. Trials documenting MedDRA use demonstrated significantly improved reporting across all three score parameters: Completeness score (p<0.001), Concordance score (p=0.002) and Transparency Index (p<0.001). MedDRA use was also associated with lower rates of registry-publication discordance across key safety metrics: serious AE participant count registry-publication discordance was 59.1% in MedDRA-documenting trials and 85.1% in non-MedDRA trials; mortality reporting discordance was 60.0% in MedDRA trials and 82.1% in non-MedDRA trials.
conclusionDespite strong association with greater AE reporting completeness and registry-publication concordance, MedDRA adoption in gastrointestinal and abdominal surgical trials remains below 20%, concentrated among industry-funded studies. The predominance of unstandardised terminology and free-text strategies contributes to reporting inadequacies that complicate evidence synthesis and undermine evidence-based surgical practice. Journals, funding agencies, academic institutions and researchers should prioritise the adoption of standardised AE terminology to enhance transparency and improve surgical research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251081191.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.