Michael S Putman1,2, Ashley Harrison Ragle3,4, Eric M Ruderman3,4. 1. From the Division of Rheumatology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA. msputman@gmail.com. 2. M.S. Putman, MD; A. Harrison Ragle, MD; E.M. Ruderman, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. msputman@gmail.com. 3. From the Division of Rheumatology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 4. M.S. Putman, MD; A. Harrison Ragle, MD; E.M. Ruderman, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCT) mitigate bias and confounding, but previous evaluations of rheumatology trials found high rates of methodological flaws. Outside of rheumatoid arthritis, no studies in the modern era have assessed the quality of rheumatology RCT over time or regarding industry funding. METHODS: We identified all RCT published in 3 high-impact rheumatology journals from 1998, 2008, and 2018. Quality metrics derived from a modified Jadad scale were analyzed by year of publication and by funding source. RESULTS: Ninety-six publications met inclusion criteria; 82 of these described the primary analysis of an RCT. Over time (1998-2008-2018), trials were less likely to adequately report dropouts and withdrawals (100% vs 82% vs 60%; p < 0.01) or include an active comparator (44% vs 12% vs 13%; p = 0.01). Later trials were more likely to evaluate biologic therapy (11% vs 38% vs 83%; p < 0.01) and report adequate randomization procedures (39% vs 29% vs 60%; p = 0.04). Seventy-nine percent of trials received industry funding. Industry-funded trials were more likely to report double-blinding (86% vs 53%; p < 0.01), patient-reported outcome measures (77% vs 41%; p < 0.01), and intention-to-treat analyses (86% vs 65%; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Industry-funded trials comprise the majority of RCT published in high-impact rheumatology journals and more frequently report metrics associated with RCT quality. RCT assessing active comparators and nonbiologic therapies have become less common in high-impact rheumatology journals.
OBJECTIVE: Well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCT) mitigate bias and confounding, but previous evaluations of rheumatology trials found high rates of methodological flaws. Outside of rheumatoid arthritis, no studies in the modern era have assessed the quality of rheumatology RCT over time or regarding industry funding. METHODS: We identified all RCT published in 3 high-impact rheumatology journals from 1998, 2008, and 2018. Quality metrics derived from a modified Jadad scale were analyzed by year of publication and by funding source. RESULTS: Ninety-six publications met inclusion criteria; 82 of these described the primary analysis of an RCT. Over time (1998-2008-2018), trials were less likely to adequately report dropouts and withdrawals (100% vs 82% vs 60%; p < 0.01) or include an active comparator (44% vs 12% vs 13%; p = 0.01). Later trials were more likely to evaluate biologic therapy (11% vs 38% vs 83%; p < 0.01) and report adequate randomization procedures (39% vs 29% vs 60%; p = 0.04). Seventy-nine percent of trials received industry funding. Industry-funded trials were more likely to report double-blinding (86% vs 53%; p < 0.01), patient-reported outcome measures (77% vs 41%; p < 0.01), and intention-to-treat analyses (86% vs 65%; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Industry-funded trials comprise the majority of RCT published in high-impact rheumatology journals and more frequently report metrics associated with RCT quality. RCT assessing active comparators and nonbiologic therapies have become less common in high-impact rheumatology journals.
Authors: Mohit Bhandari; Jason W Busse; Dianne Jackowski; Victor M Montori; Holger Schünemann; Sheila Sprague; Derek Mears; Emil H Schemitsch; Dianne Heels-Ansdell; P J Devereaux Journal: CMAJ Date: 2004-02-17 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Roy Fleischmann; Aileen L Pangan; In-Ho Song; Eduardo Mysler; Louis Bessette; Charles Peterfy; Patrick Durez; Andrew J Ostor; Yihan Li; Yijie Zhou; Ahmed A Othman; Mark C Genovese Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 10.995
Authors: Cem Gabay; Paul Emery; Ronald van Vollenhoven; Ara Dikranian; Rieke Alten; Karel Pavelka; Micki Klearman; David Musselman; Sunil Agarwal; Jennifer Green; Arthur Kavanaugh Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-03-18 Impact factor: 79.321