Literature DB >> 7261638

A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial.

T C Chalmers, H Smith, B Blackburn, B Silverman, B Schroeder, D Reitman, A Ambroz.   

Abstract

A system has been constructed to evaluate the design, implementation, and analysis of randomized control trials (RCT). The degree of quadruple blinding (the randomization process, the physicians and patients as to therapy, and the physicians as to ongoing results) is considered to be the most important aspect of any trial. The analytic techniques are scored with the same emphasis as is placed on the control of bias in the planning and implementation of the studies. Description of the patient and treatment materials and the measurement of various controls of quality have less weight. An index of quality of a RCT is proposed with its pros and cons. If published papers were to approximate these principles, there would be a marked improvement in the quality of randomized control trials. Finally, a reasonable standard design and conduct of trials will facilitate the interpretation of those with conflicting results and help in making valid combinations of undersized trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1981        PMID: 7261638     DOI: 10.1016/0197-2456(81)90056-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Control Clin Trials        ISSN: 0197-2456


  214 in total

Review 1.  [Meta-analysis as a tool for evaluation of evidence].

Authors:  A Koch; S Ziegler
Journal:  Med Klin (Munich)       Date:  2000-02-15

2.  Do glucosamine and chondroitin treat the symptoms of osteoarthritis?

Authors:  D D Edelist; M F Evans
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 3.275

3.  [Methodological quality of controlled studies in the "Medizinische Klinik" journal. Analysis of contributions appearing between 1979 and 1996].

Authors:  L Mihan; J Windeler
Journal:  Med Klin (Munich)       Date:  1999-01-15

Review 4.  Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials.

Authors:  P Jüni; D G Altman; M Egger
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-07-07

Review 5.  The need for caution in interpreting high quality systematic reviews.

Authors:  K Hopayian
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-09-22

Review 6.  Depression and osteoporosis: a research synthesis with meta-analysis.

Authors:  G Cizza; S Primma; M Coyle; L Gourgiotis; G Csako
Journal:  Horm Metab Res       Date:  2010-05-07       Impact factor: 2.936

Review 7.  Epidemiology of research into interventions for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee joint.

Authors:  J A Chard; D Tallon; P A Dieppe
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 19.103

8.  Meta-analysis: a tool for medical and scientific discoveries.

Authors:  C L Schell; R J Rathe
Journal:  Bull Med Libr Assoc       Date:  1992-07

Review 9.  A systematic review comparing transanal haemorrhoidal de-arterialisation to stapled haemorrhoidopexy in the management of haemorrhoidal disease.

Authors:  M S Sajid; U Parampalli; P Whitehouse; P Sains; M R McFall; M K Baig
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2011-12-20       Impact factor: 3.781

Review 10.  Enhancing effective and acceptable purchaser and provider decisions: overview and methods.

Authors:  A F Long; T A Sheldon
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1992-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.