Literature DB >> 22424985

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

Rahul Mhaskar1, Benjamin Djulbegovic, Anja Magazin, Heloisa P Soares, Ambuj Kumar.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether the reported methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reflects the actual methodological quality and to evaluate the association of effect size (ES) and sample size with methodological quality. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: Systematic review. This is a retrospective analysis of all consecutive phase III RCTs published by eight National Cancer Institute Cooperative Groups up to 2006. Data were extracted from protocols (actual quality) and publications (reported quality) for each study.
RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-nine RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Overall reporting of methodological quality was poor and did not reflect the actual high methodological quality of RCTs. The results showed no association between sample size and actual methodological quality of a trial. Poor reporting of allocation concealment and blinding exaggerated the ES by 6% (ratio of hazard ratio [RHR]: 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88, 0.99) and 24% (RHR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.43), respectively. However, actual quality assessment showed no association between ES and methodological quality.
CONCLUSION: The largest study to date shows that poor quality of reporting does not reflect the actual high methodological quality. Assessment of the impact of quality on the ES based on reported quality can produce misleading results.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22424985      PMCID: PMC3637913          DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.10.016

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


  20 in total

1.  Registering clinical trials.

Authors:  A Tonks
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-12-11

2.  Randomized clinical trials in HEPATOLOGY: predictors of quality.

Authors:  L L Kjaergard; D Nikolova; C Gluud
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 17.425

3.  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

4.  An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods.

Authors:  P J Devereaux; Peter T-L Choi; Samer El-Dika; Mohit Bhandari; Victor M Montori; Holger J Schünemann; Amit X Garg; Jason W Busse; Diane Heels-Ansdell; William A Ghali; Braden J Manns; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study.

Authors:  Lesley Wood; Matthias Egger; Lise Lotte Gluud; Kenneth F Schulz; Peter Jüni; Douglas G Altman; Christian Gluud; Richard M Martin; Anthony J G Wood; Jonathan A C Sterne
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-03-03

6.  Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?

Authors:  D Moher; B Pham; A Jones; D J Cook; A R Jadad; M Moher; P Tugwell; T P Klassen
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-08-22       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials.

Authors:  R J Simes
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1986-10       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.

Authors:  K F Schulz; I Chalmers; R J Hayes; D G Altman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-02-01       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.

Authors:  Kenneth F Schulz; Douglas G Altman; David Moher
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-03-23

10.  Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jayne F Tierney; Lesley A Stewart; Davina Ghersi; Sarah Burdett; Matthew R Sydes
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2007-06-07       Impact factor: 2.279

View more
  27 in total

Review 1.  A mapping review of randomized controlled trials in the spinal cord injury research literature.

Authors:  Amanda McIntyre; Brooke Benton; Shannon Janzen; Jerome Iruthayarajah; Joshua Wiener; Janice J Eng; Robert Teasell
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2018-06-14       Impact factor: 2.772

2.  SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials.

Authors:  An-Wen Chan; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Peter C Gøtzsche; Douglas G Altman; Howard Mann; Jesse A Berlin; Kay Dickersin; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Kenneth F Schulz; Wendy R Parulekar; Karmela Krleza-Jeric; Andreas Laupacis; David Moher
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-01-08

3.  Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Reporting in the Treatment of Adult Patients with High-Grade Gliomas.

Authors:  Magalie P Tardy; Jocelyn Gal; Emmanuel Chamorey; Fabien Almairac; Fanny Vandenbos; Pierre-Yves Bondiau; Esma Saada-Bouzid
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2017-11-13

4.  SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials.

Authors:  An-Wen Chan; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman; Andreas Laupacis; Peter C Gøtzsche; Karmela Krle A-Jerić; Asbjørn Hrobjartsson; Howard Mann; Kay Dickersin; Jesse A Berlin; Caroline J Dore; Wendy R Parulekar; William S M Summerskill; Trish Groves; Kenneth F Schulz; Harold C Sox; Frank W Rockhold; Drummond Rennie; David Moher
Journal:  Rev Panam Salud Publica       Date:  2015-12

5.  SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials.

Authors:  An-Wen Chan; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman; Andreas Laupacis; Peter C Gøtzsche; Karmela Krleža-Jerić; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Howard Mann; Kay Dickersin; Jesse A Berlin; Caroline J Doré; Wendy R Parulekar; William S M Summerskill; Trish Groves; Kenneth F Schulz; Harold C Sox; Frank W Rockhold; Drummond Rennie; David Moher
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 6.  Colony-stimulating factors for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

Authors:  Rahul Mhaskar; Otavio Augusto Camara Clark; Gary Lyman; Tobias Engel Ayer Botrel; Luciano Morganti Paladini; Benjamin Djulbegovic
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-10-30

7.  Individual Participant Data (IPD) Meta-analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials: Guidance on Their Use.

Authors:  Jayne F Tierney; Claire Vale; Richard Riley; Catrin Tudur Smith; Lesley Stewart; Mike Clarke; Maroeska Rovers
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

8.  Information on blinding in registered records of clinical trials.

Authors:  Roderik F Viergever; Davina Ghersi
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 9.  Study design and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of chronic idiopathic or autoimmune urticaria: review.

Authors:  Elodie Le Fourn; Bruno Giraudeau; Olivier Chosidow; Marie-Sylvie Doutre; Gérard Lorette
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-08-05       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Description of the protocols for randomized controlled trials on cancer drugs conducted in Spain (1999-2003).

Authors:  Xavier Bonfill; Mónica Ballesteros; Ignasi Gich; María Antonia Serrano; Fernando García López; Gerard Urrútia
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.