Literature DB >> 20824029

Critical Appraisal of Randomized Clinical Trials: Can We Have Faith in the Conclusions?

Martina Mittlböck1.   

Abstract

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the most appropriate research design for studying the effectiveness of a specific intervention. Its results are considered as the highest 'level of evidence'. Published reports on RCTs have already succeeded in a peer review process, but still there can be undetected major deficiencies of the study that may question the reported outcome. It is still up to the readers to assess the quality of publications and to question if the published results apply to their patients. The major points of such a critical appraisal process are reviewed and discussed with a focus on breast cancer studies.

Entities:  

Year:  2008        PMID: 20824029      PMCID: PMC2931106          DOI: 10.1159/000157168

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)        ISSN: 1661-3791            Impact factor:   2.860


  9 in total

Review 1.  The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  D G Altman; K F Schulz; D Moher; M Egger; F Davidoff; D Elbourne; P C Gøtzsche; T Lang
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2001-04-17       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Understanding controlled trials: baseline imbalance in randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  C Roberts; D J Torgerson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-07-17

3.  Users' guides to the medical literature: XIX. Applying clinical trial results. A. How to use an article measuring the effect of an intervention on surrogate end points. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.

Authors:  H C Bucher; G H Guyatt; D J Cook; A Holbrook; F A McAlister
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-08-25       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  A consumer's guide to subgroup analyses.

Authors:  A D Oxman; G H Guyatt
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1992-01-01       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trials.

Authors:  D G Altman; C J Doré
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1990-01-20       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials.

Authors:  S F Assmann; S J Pocock; L E Enos; L E Kasten
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-03-25       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Users' guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. B. What were the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.

Authors:  G H Guyatt; D L Sackett; D J Cook
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-01-05       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Users' guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.

Authors:  G H Guyatt; D L Sackett; D J Cook
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-12-01       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Proposals for sample size calculation programs.

Authors:  H Heinzl; A Benner; C Ittrich; M Mittlböck
Journal:  Methods Inf Med       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.176

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.