Reporting of Complications and Mortality in Relation to Risk Communication in Patients with an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES: High-quality reporting of surgical risks is necessary for evidence-based risk communication in clinical practice. Risk communication is defined as the process of discussing benefits and harms of treatment options with patients. This review addressed the current quality of reporting of complications and mortality in publications on abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment, with a focus on items relevant to risk communication.

DESIGN: A systematic review.

MATERIALS: Randomised clinical trials, comparative observational studies and registries from 2010 onwards were eligible if they reported complications and/or mortality in patients with an asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms who received primary treatment.

METHODS: Quality of reporting was assessed by scoring items relevant to risk communication from the reporting standards of the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. Screening, quality assessment and data extraction were independently undertaken by two authors.

RESULTS: Forty-seven publications were included. Nine of 47 publications (19%) provided no definition of complications. In 14 of 47 publications (30%), it was unclear whether the number of adverse events or the number of patients with adverse events were presented. Absolute risk differences were provided in 1 of 32 publications (3.1%) that compared complications between two treatment options. Forty-six of 47 publications reported mortality, of which 42 reported overall mortality rates (91%). Absolute risk differences were given in 2 of the 31 publications (6.5%) that compared mortality between two treatment options.

CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting of complications and mortality following primary abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment varied considerably. Better adherence to the SVS reporting standards and the CONSORT statement, as well as stating absolute risk differences may improve the quality of reporting and facilitate evidence-based risk communication.