Literature DB >> 19716266

Trial sample size, but not trial quality, is associated with positive study outcome.

Jasvinder A Singh1, Stephen Murphy, Mohit Bhandari.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the reported trial quality or trial characteristics are associated with the trial outcome. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: We identified all eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of arthroplasty from 1997 and 2006. Trials were classified based on whether the main trial outcome was reported to be positive (n = 90) or negative (n = 94). Multivariable logistic regression analyses studied the association of reporting of trial-quality measures (blinding, placebo use, allocation procedure, overall quality) and trial characteristics (intervention type, number of patients/centers, funding) with positive trial outcome.
RESULTS: RCTs that used placebo or blinded care providers, used pharmacological interventions, had higher Jadad quality scores or sample size of more than 100 patients were significantly more likely to report positive result in univariate analyses. Multivariable regression did not identify methodological quality of RCTs, but rather found that sample size was associated with trial outcome. Studies with more than 100 patients were 2.2 times more likely to report a positive result than smaller studies (P = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: Lack of association of reported trial quality with positive outcome in multivariable analyses suggests that previously observed association of reported study quality with study outcome in univariate analyses may be mediated by other study characteristics, such as study sample size. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19716266      PMCID: PMC2818000          DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.05.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  28 in total

1.  Discrepancy between published report and actual conduct of randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  Catherine L Hill; Michael P LaValley; David T Felson
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Ethan M Balk; Peter A L Bonis; Harry Moskowitz; Christopher H Schmid; John P A Ioannidis; Chenchen Wang; Joseph Lau
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-06-12       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Blinding was judged more difficult to achieve and maintain in nonpharmacologic than pharmacologic trials.

Authors:  Isabelle Boutron; Florence Tubach; Bruno Giraudeau; Philippe Ravaud
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 4.  Measuring quality of life in clinical trials: a taxonomy and review.

Authors:  G H Guyatt; S J Veldhuyzen Van Zanten; D H Feeny; D L Patrick
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1989-06-15       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 5.  Evidence based diagnostics.

Authors:  Christian Gluud; Lise Lotte Gluud
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-03-26

6.  Methodological differences in clinical trials evaluating nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments of hip and knee osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Isabelle Boutron; Florence Tubach; Bruno Giraudeau; Philippe Ravaud
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-08-27       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  An empirical study of the possible relation of treatment differences to quality scores in controlled randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  J D Emerson; E Burdick; D C Hoaglin; F Mosteller; T C Chalmers
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1990-10

8.  Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: XXV. Evidence-based medicine: principles for applying the Users' Guides to patient care. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.

Authors:  G H Guyatt; R B Haynes; R Z Jaeschke; D J Cook; L Green; C D Naylor; M C Wilson; W S Richardson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-09-13       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what.

Authors:  Kenneth F Schulz; David A Grimes
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-02-23       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 10.  Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty. A qualitative and systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Olivier Ethgen; Olivier Bruyère; Florent Richy; Charles Dardennes; Jean-Yves Reginster
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  The nature and influence of pharmaceutical industry involvement in asthma trials.

Authors:  Ken Bond; Carol Spooner; Lisa Tjosvold; Catherine Lemière; Brian H Rowe
Journal:  Can Respir J       Date:  2012 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.409

2.  Published methodological quality of randomized controlled trials does not reflect the actual quality assessed in protocols.

Authors:  Rahul Mhaskar; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Anja Magazin; Heloisa P Soares; Ambuj Kumar
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2012-03-16       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 3.  Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials.

Authors:  Jan Odgaard-Jensen; Gunn E Vist; Antje Timmer; Regina Kunz; Elie A Akl; Holger Schünemann; Matthias Briel; Alain J Nordmann; Silvia Pregno; Andrew D Oxman
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2011-04-13

Review 4.  Funding source and the quality of reports of chronic wounds trials: 2004 to 2011.

Authors:  Robert Hodgson; Richard Allen; Ellen Broderick; J Martin Bland; Jo C Dumville; Rebecca Ashby; Sally Bell-Syer; Ruth Foxlee; Jill Hall; Karen Lamb; Mary Madden; Susan O'Meara; Nikki Stubbs; Nicky Cullum
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-01-14       Impact factor: 2.279

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.