Literature DB >> 19573943

Methodological quality and completeness of reporting in clinical trials conducted in livestock species.

J M Sargeant1, R Elgie, J Valcour, J Saint-Onge, A Thompson, P Marcynuk, K Snedeker.   

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating efficacy of treatments under real world conditions and, as such, it is important that they are conducted with methodological rigour to prevent biased results. Many medical journals have adopted a standard checklist for reporting of RCTs, the CONSORT statement. The objective of this study was to evaluate clinical trials in livestock populations to assess methodological quality and completeness of reporting and to investigate the association between these criteria and treatment effects. A total of 100 clinical trials published between 2006 and 2008 in the English language were randomly selected. For each trial, 2 reviewers independently completed a checklist based on the CONSORT statement and a different 2 reviewers completed a standard template describing the outcomes used and the statistical significance of all reported treatment effects. Disagreements among reviewers were resolved by consensus. The results showed that there were substantive deficiencies in the reporting of many of trial features, both related to methodological quality and completeness of reporting. Details on key features such as randomization, double blinding, and the number of subjects lost to follow-up were reported in only 67, 4, and 62% of trials, respectively. Reporting of random allocation to treatment group was associated with a lower proportion of positive treatments effects within trials, as was reporting of inclusion/exclusion criteria for study subjects, details on the intervention, animal signalment, significance tests of baseline differences for at least one variable, and the methods used to measure all outcomes. The results suggest that there are deficiencies in the current reporting of important features of RCTs conducted in livestock species and that these deficiencies may be associated with biased treatment effects. The creation and adoption of standards for trial reporting in livestock could aid authors, reviewers, and editors in ensuring that necessary trial details are reported in all published trials.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19573943     DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2009.06.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Vet Med        ISSN: 0167-5877            Impact factor:   2.670


  11 in total

Review 1.  Describing and Characterizing the Literature Regarding Umbilical Health in Intensively Raised Cattle: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Matthew B Van Camp; David L Renaud; Todd F Duffield; Diego E Gomez; William J McFarlane; Joanne Marshall; Charlotte B Winder
Journal:  Vet Sci       Date:  2022-06-11

Review 2.  Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research.

Authors:  Carol Kilkenny; William J Browne; Innes C Cuthill; Michael Emerson; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2010-06-29       Impact factor: 8.029

3.  Improving bioscience research reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research.

Authors:  Carol Kilkenny; William J Browne; Innes C Cuthill; Michael Emerson; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  J Pharmacol Pharmacother       Date:  2010-07

4.  A survey of the awareness, knowledge, policies and views of veterinary journal Editors-in-Chief on reporting guidelines for publication of research.

Authors:  Douglas Jc Grindlay; Rachel S Dean; Mary M Christopher; Marnie L Brennan
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 2.741

5.  The methodological quality of animal research in critical care: the public face of science.

Authors:  Meredith Bara; Ari R Joffe
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2014-07-29       Impact factor: 6.925

6.  Sponsorship bias and quality of randomised controlled trials in veterinary medicine.

Authors:  K J Wareham; R M Hyde; D Grindlay; M L Brennan; R S Dean
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2017-08-14       Impact factor: 2.741

7.  What's in a Name? The Incorrect Use of Case Series as a Study Design Label in Studies Involving Dogs and Cats.

Authors:  J M Sargeant; A M O'Connor; J N Cullen; K M Makielski; A Jones-Bitton
Journal:  J Vet Intern Med       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 3.333

8.  Deficiencies of effectiveness of intervention studies in veterinary medicine: a cross-sectional survey of ten leading veterinary and medical journals.

Authors:  Nicola Di Girolamo; Reint Meursinge Reynders
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 2.984

9.  Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines.

Authors:  Lorraine C Toews
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2017-07-01

10.  Sample size and number of outcome measures of veterinary randomised controlled trials of pharmaceutical interventions funded by different sources, a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  K J Wareham; R M Hyde; D Grindlay; M L Brennan; R S Dean
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2017-10-04       Impact factor: 2.741

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.