Secular Changes in the Quality of Published Randomized Clinical Trials in Rheumatology
|
|
- Dwain George
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATISM Vol. 46, No. 3, March 2002, pp DOI /art , American College of Rheumatology Secular Changes in the Quality of Published Randomized Clinical Trials in Rheumatology Catherine L. Hill, Michael P. LaValley, and David T. Felson Objective. To assess the quality of published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in rheumatology and to determine whether there has been improvement in quality between 2 time periods, and Methods. Using MEDLINE and a hand search of selected rheumatology journals, we identified RCTs of adult rheumatic diseases published in English in or We examined trial quality with an expanded version of the Jadad scale, which assesses the adequacy of reported random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and analysis. All trials were read by 1 reviewer, with prior standardization using a random sample read by 2 reviewers. We also evaluated high - versus low -impact journals based on citation index. Results. Two hundred forty RCTs ( RCTs, RCTs) were assessed. Results showed improvement in the quality of the trials, but the rates of reported random sequence generation, allocation concealment, power, and intent-to-treat analyses were persistently low. Low rates of reports of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and intent-to-treat analyses were present even in the highimpact journals. Conclusion. There has been improvement in the quality of reporting of RCTs in rheumatology between and However, methodologic problems such as lack of allocation concealment, inadequate random sequence generation, lack of reporting of Dr. Hill s work was supported by a grant from the Arthritis Foundation of Australia. Catherine L. Hill, MB, BS, MSc, Michael P. LaValley, PhD, David T. Felson, MD, MPH: Boston University Arthritis Center, Boston, Massachusetts. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Catherine L. Hill, MB, BS, MSc, Rheumatology Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 28 Woodville Road, Woodville, South Australia Catherine.Hill@nwahs.sa.gov.au. Submitted for publication July 23, 2001; accepted in revised form October 18, power, and lack of intent-to-treat analyses remain common. Many of these problems are established sources of bias in RCTs and are easily rectifiable. We rely on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) as the most reliable evidence of a treatment s efficacy. The methodologic quality of RCTs and their reporting should influence the way we interpret the evidence contained within them. In the mid-1990s, 2 independent international efforts joined forces to develop the CON- SORT statement, a structured guide to reporting of RCTs in medical journals with the aim of improving the quality of reporting of published RCTs (1). The objectives of our study were to assess the quality of published RCTs in rheumatology, to determine whether there has been improvement in quality between the 2 time periods and , in which the former predates and the latter postdates the era of CONSORT and other published efforts to improve RCT reports in medicine in general and in rheumatology specifically, and to evaluate whether there are still important problems in the reporting of clinical trial methods in rheumatology. Potentially important problems in trial methods include inadequate random sequence generation, lack of allocation concealment, and imperfect blinding, all of which have been shown to yield inflated estimates of a treatment s effect compared with trial reports without these problems (2,3). Random sequence generation is a process designed to randomly allocate participants to each treatment group as a way of evenly distributing known and unknown confounding variables. Allocation concealment is a process distinct from blinding that conceals the random assignment sequence from the investigator and from the participant before and until the allocation of therapy, which is also intended to reduce selection bias. Blinding seeks to mask both the participant and/or the assessor from the nature of the intervention, to avoid ascertainment bias. 779
2 780 HILL ET AL Table 1. Evaluation of methodologic quality Characteristic, quality Randomization sequence generation Inadequate Unstated/unreported Allocation concealment Unclear/unreported Double blinding Inadequate Unclear/unreported Description of withdrawals and dropouts Inadequate Analysis Intent-to-treat Modified intent-to-treat Completers analysis Unclear/not done Manufacturer support* 0) No manufacturer support 1) Acknowledged grant support by a pharmaceutical manufacturer 2) Pharmaceutical employee listed as author 3) Stated the drug was supplied by manufacturer 4) Publication in journal supplement sponsored by a pharmaceutical manufacturer Description Random number table, computer random number generation, coin tossing, shuffling cards, adaptive randomization Case record number, alternation, date of admission, date of birth, even/odd, minimization Central allocation (randomization or allocation occurring at separate site from participants), local pharmacy allocation, numbered or coded bottles, serially numbered opaque sealed envelopes Use of active placebos, identical placebos, or dummies is mentioned. Description of participants who did not complete the observation period or who were not included in the analysis must be described. No statement of withdrawals, or the description of withdrawals and dropouts does not distinguish between groups. All participants randomized were included in analysis. Analysis excluded participants who never received treatment or who were never evaluated while receiving treatment. Inclusion of only participants who completed treatment protocol. * Categories defined by Rochon et al (see ref. 6). Problems with these methods have been associated with biased estimates of treatment effect. For example, the effect estimates for RCTs with inadequate allocation concealment were 37 41% greater than those with adequate allocation concealment (2,3). In addition, published RCT reports that failed to describe allocation concealment at all had similar biased estimates of effect as those with inadequate methods (3). Those RCTs with inadequate random sequence generation and inadequate blinding had effect estimates that were 5 11% and 17% greater, respectively, compared with those with adequate methods (2,3). The frequency of these particular correctable deficiencies in rheumatology trials has not been assessed, and their enumeration served as an additional goal of this study. In addition to these problems, we focused on the reporting of power analyses in trials that have shown no differences between treatments, and we focused on the presence or absence of intent-to-treat analyses. Both of these issues reflect widely accepted elements of trial publication quality (1,4).
3 QUALITY OF PUBLISHED RCTs IN RHEUMATOLOGY 781 Table 2. Characteristics of trials* Type of trial (n 119) (n 121) Disease type Rheumatoid arthritis 55 (46.2) 47 (38.8) Osteoarthritis 35 (29.4) 38 (31.4) Fibromyalgia 5 (4.2) 9 (7.4) Connective tissue disease/vasculitis 12 (10.1) 20 (16.5) Other 12 (10.1) 7 (5.8) Drug therapy 105 (88.2) 90 (74.4) NSAID (drug RCTs only) 41/105 (39.0) 20/90 (22.2) Published in rheumatology journals 60 (50.4) 86 (71.1) Crossover trials 29 (24.4) 10 (8.3) Number of participants Mean SD ,243.6 Median (range) 46 (9 493) 88 (7 10,051) Length of trial (months) Mean SD Median (range) 3 (0.1 24) 3 ( ) Manufacturer support (drug RCTs only) No manufacturer support 43/105 (41.0) 27/90 (30.0) Acknowledged grant from pharmaceutical manufacturer 18/105 (17.1) 47/90 (52.2) Pharmaceutical employee listed as author 11/105 (10.5) 10/90 (11.1) Drug supplied by manufacturer 20/105 (19.0) 4/90 (4.4) Publication in journal supplement sponsored by a pharmaceutical manufacturer 13/105 (12.4) 2/90 (2.2) * Values are the no. (%) of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). NSAID nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug. P 0.02 by chi-square test. P by chi-square test. P by Wilcoxon rank test. MATERIALS AND METHODS Search strategy. We sought RCTs on rheumatic diseases in adults that were published in English in and These included RCTs on osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), fibromyalgia, systemic lupus erythematosus, systemic sclerosis, primary Sjögren s disease, vasculitis, Behçet s disease, gout, pseudogout, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and seronegative arthritis. RCTs that evaluated back pain and soft tissue rheumatism or only evaluated adverse effects were excluded. The RCTs were found using a MEDLINE search that incorporated MeSH terms for clinical trials, the English language, and the diseases outlined above. In addition, we performed a hand search of 6 rheumatology journals: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Arthritis & Rheumatism, British Journal of Rheumatology, Journal of Rheumatology, Osteoarthritis & Cartilage, and Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology. A trial was designated to be a randomized clinical trial if the terms randomization, randomly, or randomized appeared in the title, abstract, or methods section, and if it was a prospective clinical trial with a parallel or crossover design. Abstracts were reviewed by 1 reviewer (CLH) and each RCT report was divided into those ineligible for the study and those for which the entire report needed to be reviewed. A group of 307 trials were reviewed for eligibility (by CLH) and then a random subset was reviewed by a second reviewer (DTF). There were no discrepancies between the 2 reviewers in the selection of the RCTs. Evaluation of RCT quality. Each RCT report was assessed for quality using a version of the Jadad scale (5), modified to include more detailed information regarding the methods of allocation concealment and analysis (see Table 1). Analysis was classified according to the primary analysis undertaken in the Results section. After 2 reviewers (CLH and DTF) standardized the data extraction by using a sample of RCTs from other years, all trials were evaluated by 1 reviewer (CLH). A computer-generated random sample of RCTs (n 11) from both time periods was evaluated by a second reviewer (DTF) to determine interobserver reliability for allocation concealment, double blinding, randomization, and intent-totreat analysis (kappa 0.80 for all features combined, 95% confidence interval ). In addition, we randomly selected a further subset from both time periods (n 41) using a computer-generated random number list. These RCTs were blinded for authors, institution, journal, and year and then evaluated by the primary reviewer (CLH). Intraobserver reliability for blinded compared with nonblinded RCTs for allocation concealment, double blinding, randomization, and intent-to-treat analysis was 0.81 (95% confidence interval ). Data extraction. Demographic data regarding the trial, including disease, country of origin, type of intervention, type of trial (parallel versus crossover), number of participants, and length of trial, were extracted. We also collected information regarding manufacturer support according to categories defined in a previous study by Rochon et al in 1994 (6).
4 782 HILL ET AL Table 3. Quality characteristics based on year of publication and impact factor in both time periods combined (21 RCTs from journals without citation index excluded)* Characteristic Year of publication (n 119) (n 121) Low impact (n 73) Impact factor High impact (n 146) Random sequence generation Allocation concealment Double blinding (% of double-blinded RCTs) Description of dropouts and withdrawals Power analysis (% of RCTs with negative results) Intent-to-treat analysis * Values are the % of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). P 0.05 versus P versus low-impact RCTs. Statistical analysis. Categorical data were analyzed using chi-square tests for categorical data (or Fisher s test when numbers were small). Continuous measures were analyzed using t-tests or Wilcoxon tests for nonparametric data. P values reported are 2-sided. Analyses were undertaken comparing the 2 time periods ( and ) and comparing RCTs from high - and low -impact journals. The citation index for each journal in which an RCT in the study was published was determined from the 1998 Science Citation Index; a journal s citation index is a function of how often published articles from that journal are cited subsequently in other journal articles. RCTs from journals without a citation index were excluded from this analysis. RCTs were considered to be from high-impact journals if the citation index was above the median of the journals included in the study. The remainder were considered low impact. RESULTS Of the 307 trials reviewed, 240 were included in the study, and these were almost equally divided between the 2 time periods (Table 2). The proportion of RCT reports evaluating treatments for RA decreased over the 10-year period, with an increase in trials of uncommon diseases such as connective tissue diseases and vasculitis. The proportion of RCTs involving drug interventions, and particularly nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, decreased. There was an increase in the number of participants in drug intervention trials (median 46 in [range 9 493] versus 88 in [range 7 10,051]; P by Wilcoxon rank test). There was also a secular increase in acknowledgment of manufacturer support in drug therapy trials and a reduction in those published in industry-sponsored supplements (Table 2). However, there was no difference between manufacturer-supported and non manufacturer-supported RCTs in the adequacy of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, double blinding, or analysis (data not shown). Although there were modest improvements in methods, the problems with inadequate random sequence generation, lack of allocation concealment, and lack of intent-to-treat analyses remained common (Table 3). There were small numbers of RCTs in which random sequence generation was adequately performed; however, in most RCT reports (89.9% in , 79.3% in ), the method of randomization was not stated. Similarly, in most RCT reports (87.4% in , 80.2% in ), the method of allocation concealment was not described. When reported, central allocation was the most common form of allocation concealment used in both time periods (5.9% in , 12.4% in ). Pharmacy allocation, numbered and coded bottles, and opaque envelopes were less commonly used forms of allocation concealment. In most double-blind trials, double blinding was both adequately described and performed. Of the 240 RCTs included in the study, 146 were considered to be from high-impact journals and 73 from low-impact journals, with 21 RCTs excluded from this analysis for being published in journals without a citation index. Report of adequate random sequence generation was uncommon in both the high- and the low-impact journals (Table 3). However, although report of adequate allocation concealment was uncommon in both groups, it was reported more often in high-impact journals (P 0.005) (Table 3). There were definite improvements in analysis of RCT data. For example, the proportion of trial reports using intent-to-treat analyses increased from 19.3% ( ) to 29.8% ( ), and those with a
5 QUALITY OF PUBLISHED RCTs IN RHEUMATOLOGY 783 completers analysis as the sole analysis presentation became less common (42.0% versus 23.0%, respectively; P 0.018). Nonetheless, analyses in the majority of RCTs, even in , were not done on an intentto-treat basis. A minority of RCTs in both time periods ( %, %) did not perform any statistical comparison of the 2 intervention groups. The description of the analysis in the Methods section in some RCTs either did not specify the type of analysis that was done or was misleading. For example, in , 46 RCT reports (38.0%) stated that an intent-to-treat analysis would be performed, but this was only done in 36 (29.8%). In a further 25 RCTs in , a modified intent-to-treat analysis was performed, which excluded participants who never received treatment or who were never evaluated while receiving treatment. Another secular improvement noted was a significant increase in the number of RCTs with a negative result that reported power analyses. However, 65% of negative trials in which the treatment comparisons showed no statistically significant difference still failed to provide evidence on whether there was adequate statistical power to detect meaningful differences (Table 3). There were no differences between RCTs published in high- and low-impact journals in the performance of an intent-to-treat analysis (high impact 26.0% versus low impact 24.7%) or in the reporting of power calculations in negative RCTs (high impact 26.5% versus low impact 15.8%). DISCUSSION Methodologic problems such as lack of allocation concealment, inadequate random sequence generation, and lack of reporting of power and intent-to-treat analyses are common in rheumatology RCT publications, even in high-impact journals. Reporting of methods of random sequence generation and allocation concealment remain infrequent, whereas there have been substantial improvements in the inclusion of intent-to-treat analyses. Our results imply that rheumatology RCT reports could be improved by implementation of reporting guidelines for trials. These guidelines can be found at the CONSORT Web site ( Lack of allocation concealment, which gives rise to the largest inflation of effect estimates, is the most common problem. The low proportion of RCTs describing adequate allocation concealment is comparable with other specialties. For example, in a study of perinatal RCTs, adequate allocation concealment was present in only 31.6% (3). In a study of 73 RCTs published in the Archives of Dermatology between 1976 and 1997, only 1% described adequate randomization, 3% adequate allocation concealment, and 6% intent-to-treat analyses (7). A previous study of secular trends in published clinical trials of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in RA from the time periods , , and showed no change in the amount of information given on eligibility criteria, random allocation, method of randomization, or blinding. However, there was an increase in the description and complexity of statistical methods used (8). The use of the intent-to-treat analysis, i.e., analysis of all those randomized for treatment in the trial, constitutes the most valid analytic approach in a randomized trial. Exclusion of randomized subjects can lead to an overestimation of clinical effectiveness (9). Although we have shown that in rheumatology RCTs, analytic approaches have improved, use of the intent-to treat approach still is reported in less than half of the trials even in high-impact journals. Furthermore, in rheumatology RCTs we found that, even if the RCT publication describes an intent-to-treat analysis, this description is often misleading. A study of 249 RCTs published in 1997 in the Lancet, British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, and Journal of the American Medical Association demonstrated that the intent-to-treat approach was often inadequately described and applied. Of the 119 RCTs that stated that intent-to-treat analysis was performed, 13% did not actually perform this analysis and there was a wide variation in the handling of missing data (10). RCTs that report no difference between treatment groups should ideally present results of a power analysis (11), which would provide information as to whether the study had a sufficient number of subjects to detect a likely treatment effect. Unfortunately, less than one-half of null (negative) trials provide such information. Major medical journals, recognizing biases in reporting of industry-sponsored trials, have recently mandated that first authors of reports of these trials have access to trial data and the opportunity to analyze these data (12). Although we have addressed different issues in this investigation, we share the dilemma being addressed by those editors, in that we too recognize that there is bias in reporting of data from randomized trials. In both cases, we seek to lessen that bias so that the data reported provide valid evidence on treatment efficacy. Our findings of trial report deficiencies could be due to either actual limitations in the methods of trials
6 784 HILL ET AL or to incomplete reporting of these methods (or both). The problem of adequate reporting of trial methods is a dual responsibility of editors and authors. Journals can require a standard of reporting of RCT methods to be followed by authors. A number of general medical and specialty medical journals already adhere to the CON- SORT statement as one means of ensuring this. A recent study showed that RCTs in 3 general medical journals that adopted the CONSORT guidelines showed improvement in the overall trial quality score based on the Jadad scale and showed improvement in the reporting of allocation concealment between 1994 and 1998, whereas the comparator journal (New England Journal of Medicine), which did not adopt the guidelines, had no change (13). Following the original CONSORT guidelines would have resulted in improvements in most of the specific problems identified in rheumatology trials. Adherence to such a protocol need not put extra burden on peer reviewers; instead, a checklist could be completed by the investigators or editorial staff. Such a checklist is easily available from the CONSORT Web site ( Without complete descriptions of methods, RCTs should not be published, if we are to avoid already documented biases. The use of adequate trial methods requires planning at the implementation phase of the RCT. Since it is possible to implement adequate methods of random sequence generation and allocation concealment in any trial setting, including non drug therapy and open trials, there is no reason that these important sources of biases could not be reduced. In addition, the use of inappropriate analysis can further cloud the true effect of the treatment. As we seek more marginal benefits of interventions, particularly when comparing 2 therapeutic interventions, these types of preventable methodologic biases become even more critical (14). The goal of both trial investigators and editors should be to provide the most explicit account of the RCT to the wider rheumatology community so that the appropriate use of the information for our patients can be made. REFERENCES 1. The Standards of Reporting Trials Group. A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1994;272: Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998;352: Schultz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effect in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273: Verhagen AP, de Vet HCW, de Bie RA, Kessels AGH, Boers M, Bouter LM, et al. The Delphi List: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17: Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Simms RW, Fortin PR, Felson DT, Minaker KL, et al. A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. Arch Intern Med 1994;154: Adetugbo K, Williams H. How well are randomized controlled trials reported in the dermatology literature? Arch Dermatol 2000;136: Anderson JJ, Felson DT, Meenan RF. Secular changes in published clinical trials of second-line agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1991;34: Bollini P, Pampallona S, Tibaldi G, Kupelnick B, Munizza C. Effectiveness of antidepressants: meta-analysis of dose-effect relationships in randomised clinical trials. Br J Psychiatry 1999;174: Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis: survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ 1999;319: Moher D, Dulberg CS, Wells GA. Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1994; 272: Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Hoey J, Hojgaard L, Horton R, et al. Sponsorship, authorship and accountability. N Engl J Med 2001;345: Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L, the CONSORT group. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA 2001;285: Schulz KF. Assessing allocation concealment and blinding in randomized controlled trials: why bother? ACP J Club 2000;132: A11 2.
ARCHE Risk of Bias (ROB) Guidelines
Types of Biases and ROB Domains ARCHE Risk of Bias (ROB) Guidelines Bias Selection Bias Performance Bias Detection Bias Attrition Bias Reporting Bias Other Bias ROB Domain Sequence generation Allocation
More informationControlled Trials. Spyros Kitsiou, PhD
Assessing Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials Spyros Kitsiou, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Biomedical and Health Information Sciences College of Applied Health Sciences University of
More informationThe influence of CONSORT on the quality of reports of RCTs: An updated review. Thanks to MRC (UK), and CIHR (Canada) for funding support
The influence of CONSORT on the quality of reports of RCTs: An updated review Thanks to MRC (UK), and CIHR (Canada) for funding support Background In 1996 in response to concerns about the quality of reporting
More informationApplying the Risk of Bias Tool in a Systematic Review of Combination Long-Acting Beta-Agonists and Inhaled Corticosteroids for Persistent Asthma
Applying the Risk of Bias Tool in a Systematic Review of Combination Long-Acting Beta-Agonists and Inhaled Corticosteroids for Persistent Asthma Lisa Hartling 1 *, Kenneth Bond 1, Ben Vandermeer 1, Jennifer
More informationCONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial*
CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial* Section/Topic Title and abstract Introduction Background and objectives Item No Checklist item 1a Identification as a
More informationThe QUOROM Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of systematic reviews
The QUOROM Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of systematic reviews David Moher 1, Alessandro Liberati 2, Douglas G Altman 3, Jennifer Tetzlaff 1 for the QUOROM Group
More informationCRITICAL APPRAISAL OF MEDICAL LITERATURE. Samuel Iff ISPM Bern
CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF MEDICAL LITERATURE Samuel Iff ISPM Bern siff@ispm.unibe.ch Contents Study designs Asking good questions Pitfalls in clinical studies How to assess validity (RCT) Conclusion Step-by-step
More informationImprovement in the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Among General Anesthesiology Journals 2000 to 2006: A 6-Year Follow-Up
Improvement in the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Among General Anesthesiology Journals 2000 to 2006: A 6-Year Follow-Up Mary Lou V. H. Greenfield, MPH, MS Jill M. Mhyre, MD George A. Mashour,
More informationReporting of Randomized Controlled Trials in Hodgkin Lymphoma in Biomedical Journals
Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials in Hodgkin Lymphoma in Biomedical Journals Thilo Kober, Sven Trelle, Andreas Engert Background : Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the best tool to evaluate
More informationIssues to Consider in the Design of Randomized Controlled Trials
Issues to Consider in the Design of Randomized Controlled Trials Jay Wilkinson, MD, MPH Professor of Pediatrics & Epidemiology Miller School of Medicine Seminar Purpose To facilitate an interactive discussion
More informationBandolier. Professional. Independent evidence-based health care ON QUALITY AND VALIDITY. Quality and validity. May Clinical trial quality
Bandolier Professional Independent evidence-based health care ON QUALITY AND VALIDITY If studies are not done properly, any results they produce will be worthless. We call this validity. What constitutes
More informationUser s guide to the checklist of items assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials of nonpharmacological treatment
User s guide to the checklist of items assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials of nonpharmacological treatment Reviewers will answer the following items, taking into account the data repted
More informationEvidence across diverse medical fields suggests that the
Article Reporting of Harm in Randomized, Controlled Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatment for Rheumatic Disease Morgane Ethgen, MSc; Isabelle Boutron, MD; Gabriel Baron, MSc; Bruno Giraudeau, PhD; Jean
More informationThe RoB 2.0 tool (individually randomized, cross-over trials)
The RoB 2.0 tool (individually randomized, cross-over trials) Study design Randomized parallel group trial Cluster-randomized trial Randomized cross-over or other matched design Specify which outcome is
More informationAssessment of Risk of Bias Among Pediatric Randomized Controlled Trials
Assessment of Risk of Bias Among Pediatric Randomized Controlled Trials Michael T. Crocetti, Diane D. Amin and Roberta Scherer Pediatrics 2010;126;298-305; originally published online Jul 12, 2010; DOI:
More informationAn absence of pediatric randomized controlled trials in general medical journals, 1985e2004
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60 (2007) 118e123 An absence of pediatric randomized controlled trials in general medical journals, 1985e2004 Eyal Cohen a,b, *, Elizabeth Uleryk c, Mona Jasuja a, Patricia
More informationWell-designed, properly conducted, and clearly reported randomized controlled
Tiruvoipati et al Statistics for the Rest of Us Improving the quality of reporting randomized controlled trials in cardiothoracic surgery: The way forward Ravindranath Tiruvoipati, FRCSEd, a Sabapathy
More informationCONSORT 2010 Statement Annals Internal Medicine, 24 March History of CONSORT. CONSORT-Statement. Ji-Qian Fang. Inadequate reporting damages RCT
CONSORT-Statement Guideline for Reporting Clinical Trial Ji-Qian Fang School of Public Health Sun Yat-Sen University Inadequate reporting damages RCT The whole of medicine depends on the transparent reporting
More informationGuidelines for Reporting Non-Randomised Studies
Revised and edited by Renatus Ziegler B.C. Reeves a W. Gaus b a Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Great Britain b Biometrie und Medizinische Dokumentation,
More informationMaxing out on quality appraisal of your research: Avoiding common pitfalls. Policy influenced by study quality
Maxing out on quality appraisal of your research: Avoiding common pitfalls. WITH EXAMPLES FROM THE ONGOING SETS RCT STUDY ERIC PARENT, PT, M.SC. PH.D. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,DEPT. OF PHYSICAL THERAPY AND
More informationCochrane Bone, Joint & Muscle Trauma Group How To Write A Protocol
A p r i l 2 0 0 8 Cochrane Bone, Joint & Muscle Trauma Group How To Write A Protocol This booklet was originally produced by the Cochrane Renal Group to make the whole process of preparing a protocol as
More informationDownloaded from:
Arnup, SJ; Forbes, AB; Kahan, BC; Morgan, KE; McKenzie, JE (2016) The quality of reporting in cluster randomised crossover trials: proposal for reporting items and an assessment of reporting quality. Trials,
More informationSpecial Features of Randomized Controlled Trials
Special Features of Randomized Controlled Trials Bangkok 2006 Kenneth F. Schulz, PhD, MBA Critical Methodological Elements in RCTs Randomization Avoiding and handling exclusions after trial entry Blinding
More informationCochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Methodological Guidelines
Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Methodological Guidelines [Prepared by Simon Gates: July 2009, updated July 2012] These guidelines are intended to aid quality and consistency across the reviews
More informationAssessing the Quality of Randomized Controlled Urological Trials Conducted by Korean Medical Institutions
www.kjurology.org http://dx.doi.org/10.4111/kju.2013.54.5.289 Special Article Assessing the Quality of Randomized Controlled Urological Trials Conducted by Korean Medical Institutions Jae Hoon Chung, Seung
More informationWeb appendix (published as supplied by the authors)
Web appendix (published as supplied by the authors) In this appendix we provide motivation and considerations for assessing the risk of bias for each of the items included in the Cochrane Collaboration
More informationChecklist for Randomized Controlled Trials. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews
The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews Checklist for Randomized Controlled Trials http://joannabriggs.org/research/critical-appraisal-tools.html www.joannabriggs.org
More informationANONINFERIORITY OR EQUIVAlence
BRIEF REPORT Quality of Reporting of Noninferiority and Randomized Trials Anne Le Henanff, MSc Bruno Giraudeau, PhD Gabriel Baron, MSc Philippe Ravaud, MD, PhD See also pp 1152 and 1172. Context Noninferiority
More informationEmpirical evidence on sources of bias in randomised controlled trials: methods of and results from the BRANDO study
Empirical evidence on sources of bias in randomised controlled trials: methods of and results from the BRANDO study Jonathan Sterne, University of Bristol, UK Acknowledgements: Tony Ades, Bodil Als-Nielsen,
More informationAssessing risk of bias
Assessing risk of bias Norwegian Research School for Global Health Atle Fretheim Research Director, Norwegian Institute of Public Health Professor II, Uiniversity of Oslo Goal for the day We all have an
More informationRandomized Controlled Trial
Randomized Controlled Trial Training Course in Sexual and Reproductive Health Research Geneva 2016 Dr Khalifa Elmusharaf MBBS, PgDip, FRSPH, PHD Senior Lecturer in Public Health Graduate Entry Medical
More informationChecklist for Randomized Controlled Trials. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews
The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews Checklist for Randomized Controlled Trials http://joannabriggs.org/research/critical-appraisal-tools.html www.joannabriggs.org
More informationSystematic reviewers neglect bias that results from trials stopped early for benefit
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60 (2007) 869e873 REVIEW ARTICLE Systematic reviewers neglect bias that results from trials stopped early for benefit Dirk Bassler a,b, Ignacio Ferreira-Gonzalez a,c,d,
More informationCitation Characteristics of Research Published in Emergency Medicine Versus Other Scientific Journals
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION Citation Characteristics of Research Published in Emergency Medicine Versus Other Scientific From the Division of Emergency Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA *
More informationLearning objectives. Examining the reliability of published research findings
Examining the reliability of published research findings Roger Chou, MD Associate Professor of Medicine Department of Medicine and Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology Scientific
More informationThe importance of good reporting of medical research. Doug Altman. Centre for Statistics in Medicine University of Oxford
The importance of good reporting of medical research Doug Altman Centre for Statistics in Medicine University of Oxford 1 Why reporting matters CONSORT and other reporting guidelines EQUATOR Network Other
More informationRevised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0) Additional considerations for cross-over trials
Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0) Additional considerations for cross-over trials Edited by Julian PT Higgins on behalf of the RoB 2.0 working group on cross-over trials
More informationCTRI Dataset and Description
CTRI Dataset and Description CTRI Field Description Public title of study Title intended for the lay public in easily understood language. Example: A clinical trial to study the effects of two drugs, ramipril
More informationRole of evidence from observational studies in the process of health care decision making
Role of evidence from observational studies in the process of health care decision making Jan van der Meulen Health Services Research Unit London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Clinical Effectiveness
More informationReliability of the PEDro Scale for Rating Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials
Research Report Reliability of the PEDro Scale for Rating Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Background and Purpose. Assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is common practice
More informationReporting and dealing with missing quality of life data in RCTs: has the picture changed in the last decade?
Qual Life Res (2016) 25:2977 2983 DOI 10.1007/s11136-016-1411-6 REVIEW Reporting and dealing with missing quality of life data in RCTs: has the picture changed in the last decade? S. Fielding 1 A. Ogbuagu
More informationQuality of Reporting of Modern Randomized Controlled Trials in Medical Oncology: A Systematic Review
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djs259 Advance Access publication on July 3, 2012. The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
More informationSystematic Reviews. Simon Gates 8 March 2007
Systematic Reviews Simon Gates 8 March 2007 Contents Reviewing of research Why we need reviews Traditional narrative reviews Systematic reviews Components of systematic reviews Conclusions Key reference
More informationCritical Appraisal Series
Definition for therapeutic study Terms Definitions Study design section Observational descriptive studies Observational analytical studies Experimental studies Pragmatic trial Cluster trial Researcher
More informationTransparency and accuracy in reporting health research
Transparency and accuracy in reporting health research Doug Altman The EQUATOR Network Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Oxford, UK Transparency and value Research only has value if Study methods have
More informationThe SPIRIT Initiative: Defining standard protocol items
The SPIRIT Initiative: Defining standard protocol items October 11, 2012 An-Wen Chan, MD DPhil Women s College Hospital & Research Institute University of Toronto Importance of trial protocols Trial registries
More informationThe role of Randomized Controlled Trials
The role of Randomized Controlled Trials Dr. Georgia Salanti Lecturer in Epidemiology University of Ioannina School of Medicine Outline Understanding study designs and the role of confounding Observational
More informationPredictors of publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals
Predictors of publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals Kirby P Lee, Elizabeth A Boyd, Jayna M Holroyd-Leduc, Peter Bacchetti and Lisa
More informationCHL 5225 H Advanced Statistical Methods for Clinical Trials. CHL 5225 H The Language of Clinical Trials
CHL 5225 H Advanced Statistical Methods for Clinical Trials Two sources for course material 1. Electronic blackboard required readings 2. www.andywillan.com/chl5225h code of conduct course outline schedule
More informationTeaching critical appraisal of randomised controlled trials
Teaching critical appraisal of randomised controlled trials Dr Kamal R. Mahtani BSc PhD MBBS PGDip MRCGP Deputy Director Centre for Evidence Based Medicine University of Oxford November 2014 1 objectives
More informationDARE abstract
DARE abstract 20020730 Evidence for the optimal management of acute and chronic phantom pain: a systematic review Halbert J, Crotty M, Cameron I D. Evidence for the optimal management of acute and chronic
More informationSchool of Dentistry. What is a systematic review?
School of Dentistry What is a systematic review? Screen Shot 2012-12-12 at 09.38.42 Where do I find the best evidence? The Literature Information overload 2 million articles published a year 20,000 biomedical
More informationRESEARCH. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study
Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study Lisa Hartling, assistant professor Maria Ospina, project manager Yuanyuan Liang, research scientist and biostatistician
More informationCHECK-LISTS AND Tools DR F. R E Z A E I DR E. G H A D E R I K U R D I S TA N U N I V E R S I T Y O F M E D I C A L S C I E N C E S
CHECK-LISTS AND Tools DR F. R E Z A E I DR E. G H A D E R I K U R D I S TA N U N I V E R S I T Y O F M E D I C A L S C I E N C E S What is critical appraisal? Critical appraisal is the assessment of evidence
More informationDatabase of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) Produced by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Copyright 2017 University of York.
A comparison of the cost-effectiveness of five strategies for the prevention of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastrointestinal toxicity: a systematic review with economic modelling Brown
More informationGarbage in - garbage out? Impact of poor reporting on the development of systematic reviews
Garbage in - garbage out? Impact of poor reporting on the development of systematic reviews ACT now: EQUATOR Scientific Symposium Freiburg, 11 October 2012 Erik von Elm, MD MSc FMH Cochrane Switzerland
More informationUsing Number Needed to Treat to Interpret Treatment Effect
Continuing Medical Education 20 Using Number Needed to Treat to Interpret Treatment Effect Der-Shin Ke Abstract- Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has rapidly emerged as a new paradigm in medicine worldwide.
More informationInstrument for the assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analysis
Appendix II Annex II Instruments for the assessment of evidence As detailed in the main body of the methodological appendix (Appendix II, "Description of the methodology utilised for the collection, assessment
More informationEQUATOR Network: promises and results of reporting guidelines
EQUATOR Network: promises and results of reporting guidelines Doug Altman The EQUATOR Network Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Oxford, UK Key principles of research publications A published research
More informationEvaluating and Interpreting Clinical Trials
Article #2 CE Evaluating and Interpreting Clinical Trials Dorothy Cimino Brown, DVM, DACVS University of Pennsylvania ABSTRACT: For the practicing veterinarian, selecting the best treatment for patients
More informationSystematic Review & Course outline. Lecture (20%) Class discussion & tutorial (30%)
Systematic Review & Meta-analysisanalysis Ammarin Thakkinstian, Ph.D. Section for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital Tel: 02-201-1269, 02-201-1762 Fax: 02-2011284
More informationSystematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies (MOOSE): Checklist.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies (MOOSE): Checklist. MOOSE Checklist Infliximab reduces hospitalizations and surgery interventions in patients with inflammatory bowel disease:
More informationMethods in Research on Research. The Peer Review Process. Why Evidence Based Practices Are Needed?
Methods in Research on Research The Peer Review Process. Why Evidence Based Practices Are Needed? Isabelle Boutron METHODS team Research Centre of Epidemiology Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Paris Descartes
More informationUses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study
Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study Bruno R. da Costa 1, Myriam Cevallos 1, 2, Douglas G. Altman 3, Anne W.S. Rutjes 1, Matthias Egger 1 1. Institute of Social & Preventive Medicine
More informationThe role of meta-analysis in the evaluation of the effects of early nutrition on neurodevelopment
Note: for non-commercial purposes only The role of meta-analysis in the evaluation of the effects of early nutrition on neurodevelopment Hania Szajewska The Medical University of Warsaw Department of Paediatrics
More informationStrategies for handling missing data in randomised trials
Strategies for handling missing data in randomised trials NIHR statistical meeting London, 13th February 2012 Ian White MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK Plan 1. Why do missing data matter? 2. Popular
More informationGLOSSARY OF GENERAL TERMS
GLOSSARY OF GENERAL TERMS Absolute risk reduction Absolute risk reduction (ARR) is the difference between the event rate in the control group (CER) and the event rate in the treated group (EER). ARR =
More informationSolving clinical trial problems by using novel designs. Anastasia Ivanova and Sonia Davis-Thomas Department of Biostatistics
Solving clinical trial problems by using novel designs Anastasia Ivanova and Sonia Davis-Thomas Department of Biostatistics Problem 1 Difficulties with patient recruitment Bias that occurs when patients
More informationSystematic Reviews and Meta- Analysis in Kidney Transplantation
Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analysis in Kidney Transplantation Greg Knoll MD MSc Associate Professor of Medicine Medical Director, Kidney Transplantation University of Ottawa and The Ottawa Hospital KRESCENT
More informationEssential Skills for Evidence-based Practice Understanding and Using Systematic Reviews
J Nurs Sci Vol.28 No.4 Oct - Dec 2010 Essential Skills for Evidence-based Practice Understanding and Using Systematic Reviews Jeanne Grace Corresponding author: J Grace E-mail: Jeanne_Grace@urmc.rochester.edu
More informationMeta-analyses: analyses:
Meta-analyses: analyses: how do they help, and when can they not? Lee Hooper Senior Lecturer in research synthesis & nutrition l.hooper@uea.ac.uk 01603 591268 Aims Systematic Reviews Discuss the scientific
More informationEffectiveness of True Acupuncture as an Adjunct to Standard Care or Electro-Physiotherapy in Osteoarthritis of the Knee
Cronicon OPEN ACCESS ORTHOPAEDICS Research article Effectiveness of True Acupuncture as an Adjunct to Standard Care or Electro-Physiotherapy in Osteoarthritis of Dimitar Tonev 1 *, Stoyka Radeva 2 and
More informationProtocol Development: The Guiding Light of Any Clinical Study
Protocol Development: The Guiding Light of Any Clinical Study Susan G. Fisher, Ph.D. Chair, Department of Clinical Sciences 1 Introduction Importance/ relevance/ gaps in knowledge Specific purpose of the
More informationJournal of Biostatistics and Epidemiology
Journal of Biostatistics and Epidemiology Original Article Usage of statistical methods and study designs in publication of specialty of general medicine and its secular changes Swati Patel 1*, Vipin Naik
More informationResearch Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in polycystic ovary syndrome Anna Partsinevelou 1 and Elias Zintzaras* 1,2
Trials BioMed Central Research Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in polycystic ovary syndrome Anna Partsinevelou 1 and Elias Zintzaras* 1,2 Open Access Address: 1 Department of Biomathematics,
More informationCritical Appraisal of RCT
Critical Appraisal of RCT What is critical appraisal? Definition Process of systematically examining research evidence to assess its reliability (validity/internal validity), results and relevance (external
More informationDevelopment of Classification and Response Criteria for Rheumatic Diseases
Arthritis & Rheumatism (Arthritis Care & Research) Vol. 55, No. 3, June 15, 2006, pp 348 352 DOI 10.1002/art.22003 2006, American College of Rheumatology EDITORIAL Development of Classification and Response
More informationHow to Interpret a Clinical Trial Result
How to Interpret a Clinical Trial Result Edward V. Loftus, Jr., M.D. Professor of Medicine Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Mayo Clinic College of Medicine Rochester MN CP123456-1 Are results
More informationStandard Methods for Quality Assessment of Evidence
Drug Use Research & Management Program Oregon State University, 500 Summer Street NE, E35, Salem, Oregon 97301 1079 Phone 503 947 5220 Fax 503 947 1119 Standard Methods for Quality Assessment of Evidence
More informationExperimental Design. Terminology. Chusak Okascharoen, MD, PhD September 19 th, Experimental study Clinical trial Randomized controlled trial
Experimental Design Chusak Okascharoen, MD, PhD September 19 th, 2016 Terminology Experimental study Clinical trial Randomized controlled trial 1 PHASES OF CLINICAL TRIALS Phase I: First-time-in-man studies
More informationQigong for healthcare: an overview of systematic reviews
RESEARCH Qigong for healthcare: an overview of systematic reviews Myeong Soo 1,2 Byeongsang Oh 3 Edzard Ernst 2 1 Brain Disease Research Centre, Institute of Oriental Medicine, Daejeon, South 2 Complementary
More informationRandomised Controlled Trials
Randomised Controlled Trials Dr John Stephenson Senior Lecturer in Biomedical/Health Statistics School of Human and Health Sciences University of Huddersfield Huddersfield, GB-HD1 3DH J.Stephenson@hud.ac.uk
More informationTitle: Reporting and Methodologic Quality of Cochrane Neonatal Review Group Systematic Reviews
Reviewer's report Title: Reporting and Methodologic Quality of Cochrane Neonatal Review Group Systematic Reviews Version: 1 Date: 26 August 2008 Reviewer: Andreas Lundh Reviewer's report: General The authors
More informationCon - SMBG Should be the Standard of Care in All Patients with Type 2 Diabetes
JUNE 9 13, 2006 WASHINGTON, DC Con - SMBG Should be the Standard of Care in All Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Antonio Nicolucci, MD Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Epidemiology Consorzio Mario
More informationIntroduction to systematic reviews/metaanalysis
Introduction to systematic reviews/metaanalysis Hania Szajewska The Medical University of Warsaw Department of Paediatrics hania@ipgate.pl Do I needknowledgeon systematicreviews? Bastian H, Glasziou P,
More informationEvidence-Based Review Process to Link Dietary Factors with Chronic Disease Case Study: Cardiovascular Disease and n- 3 Fatty Acids
Evidence-Based Review Process to Link Dietary Factors with Chronic Disease Case Study: Cardiovascular Disease and n- 3 Fatty Acids Alice H. Lichtenstein, D.Sc. Gershoff Professor of Nutrition Science and
More informationProblem solving therapy
Introduction People with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia may show impairments in problem-solving ability. Remediation interventions such as problem solving skills training can help people
More informationThe Quest for Unbiased Research: Randomized Clinical Trials and the CONSORT Reporting Guidelines
SPECIAL REPORT The Quest for Unbiased Research: Randomized Clinical Trials and the CONSORT Reporting Guidelines Kenneth F. Schulz, PhD, MBA Editor s Note The large and increasing number of randomized clinical
More informationModels for potentially biased evidence in meta-analysis using empirically based priors
Models for potentially biased evidence in meta-analysis using empirically based priors Nicky Welton Thanks to: Tony Ades, John Carlin, Doug Altman, Jonathan Sterne, Ross Harris RSS Avon Local Group Meeting,
More informationReporting methodological items in randomised
Reporting methodological items in randomised experiments in political science Isabelle Boutron (Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, UK), Peter John (School of Social Sciences, University
More informationModule 5. The Epidemiological Basis of Randomised Controlled Trials. Landon Myer School of Public Health & Family Medicine, University of Cape Town
Module 5 The Epidemiological Basis of Randomised Controlled Trials Landon Myer School of Public Health & Family Medicine, University of Cape Town Introduction The Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) is the
More informationRATING OF A RESEARCH PAPER. By: Neti Juniarti, S.Kp., M.Kes., MNurs
RATING OF A RESEARCH PAPER RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL TO COMPARE SURGICAL STABILISATION OF THE LUMBAR SPINE WITH AN INTENSIVE REHABILITATION PROGRAMME FOR PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN: THE MRC
More informationTHE REPORTING OF HARM IS AS
ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION HEALTH CARE REFORM Reporting of Safety Results in Published Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials Isabelle Pitrou, MD, MSc; Isabelle Boutron, MD, PhD; Nizar Ahmad, MD, MSc; Philippe
More informationCritical Appraisal Practicum. Fabio Di Bello Medical Implementation Manager
Critical Appraisal Practicum Fabio Di Bello Medical Implementation Manager fdibello@ebsco.com What we ll talk about today: DynaMed process for appraising randomized trials and writing evidence summaries
More informationTHE BATH ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS PATIENT GLOBAL SCORE (BAS-G)
British Journal of Rheumatology 1996;35:66-71 THE BATH ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS PATIENT GLOBAL SCORE (BAS-G) S. D. JONES, A. STEINER,* S. L. GARRETT and A. CALIN Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases,
More informationRandomized, controlled trials (RCTs) are frequently
Reporting the Recruitment Process in Clinical Trials: Who Are These Patients and How Did They Get There? Cary P. Gross, MD; Raburn Mallory, MD; Asefeh Heiat, MD; and Harlan M. Krumholz, MD Background:
More informationA Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Clinical Effectiveness of Group Analysis and Analytic/Dynamic Group Psychotherapy
A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Clinical Effectiveness of Group Analysis and Analytic/Dynamic Group Psychotherapy Executive summary Aims of the review The main aim of the review was to assess the
More informationWhat is the Cochrane Collaboration? What is a systematic review?
1 What is the Cochrane Collaboration? What is a systematic review? Archie Cochrane (1909-1988) It is surely a great criticism of our profession that we have not organised a critical summary, by specialty
More informationReviewer No. 1 checklist for application of: inclusion of Nifurtimox + eflornithine in the WHO Essential Medicines List
Reviewer No. 1 checklist for application of: inclusion of Nifurtimox + eflornithine in the WHO Essential Medicines List (1) Have all important studies that you are aware of been included? No additional
More informationT he randomised control trial (RCT) is a trial in
164 RESEARCH SERIES Designing a research project: randomised controlled trials and their principles J M Kendall... The sixth paper in this series discusses the design and principles of randomised controlled
More information