Literature DB >> 9676682

Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals: islands in search of continents?

M Clarke1, I Chalmers.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Several journals have adopted the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) recommendations to make assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) easier. One of these recommendations is that the trial's results be discussed in light of the totality of the available evidence.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent to which reports of RCTs published in 5 general medical journals have discussed new results in light of all available evidence.
DESIGN: Assessment of the discussion sections in all 26 reports of RCTs published during May 1997 in Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The inclusion or mention of a systematic review in the discussion section of each article.
RESULTS: In only 2 articles were the RCT's results discussed in the context of an updated systematic review of earlier trials. In a further 4 articles, references were made to relevant systematic reviews, but no attempts were made to integrate the results of the new trials in updated versions of these reviews. One article was probably the first published trial to address the question studied. The remaining 19 articles included no evidence that any systematic attempt had been made to set the reported trial's results in the context of previous trials.
CONCLUSION: There is little evidence that journals have adequately implemented the CONSORT recommendation that results of an RCT be discussed in light of the totality of the available evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9676682     DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.3.280

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  31 in total

1.  Structuring the discussion of scientific papers. Results of single studies must be assessed in context of relevant systematic reviews.

Authors:  T Jefferson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-08-28

2.  Evidence-based medicine: a commentary on common criticisms.

Authors:  S E Straus; F A McAlister
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-10-03       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Acknowledgment of uncertainty: a fundamental means to ensure scientific and ethical validity in clinical research.

Authors:  B Djulbegovic
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 5.075

4.  Revisiting the Cochrane Collaboration. Meeting the challenge of Archie Cochrane--and facing up to some new ones.

Authors:  M Clarke; P Langhorne
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-10-13

5.  Reporting the clinical importance of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  David Moher; Douglas G Altman; Kenneth F Schulz
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2002-03-19       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Evaluating "payback" on biomedical research. Biomedical funding decisions should be audited.

Authors:  I Chalmers
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-09-02

Review 7.  Putting evidence into practice: how middle and low income countries "get it together".

Authors:  Paul Garner; Martin Meremikwu; Jimmy Volmink; Qian Xu; Helen Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-10-30

8.  Reports of clinical trials should begin and end with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant evidence: a status report.

Authors:  Mike Clarke; Sally Hopewell; Iain Chalmers
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 9.  Thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke: a guide to patient selection.

Authors:  Richard I Lindley
Journal:  CNS Drugs       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 5.749

10.  Interpreting trial results in light of conflicting evidence: a Bayesian analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Rebecca A Miksad; Mithat Gönen; Thomas J Lynch; Thomas G Roberts
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-03-23       Impact factor: 44.544

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.