Dataset Information

Quality of descriptions of treatments: a review of published randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To be useable in clinical practise, treatments studied in trials must provide sufficient information to enable clinicians and researchers to replicate. We sought to assess the completeness of treatment descriptions in published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using a checklist and to determine the extent to which peer reviewers and editors comment on the quality of reporting of treatments.

Design

A cross-sectional study.

Setting

Trials published in the BMJ, a general medical journal.

Participants

Fifty-one trials published in the BMJ were independently evaluated by two raters using a checklist. Reviewers' and editors' comments were also assessed for statements on treatment descriptions.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Proportion of trials rated as replicable (primary outcome).

Results

For 57% (29/51) of the papers, published treatment descriptions were not considered sufficient to allow replication. Most poorly described aspects were the actual procedures involved including the sequencing of the technique (what happened and when) and the physical or informational materials used (eg, training materials): 53% and 43% not clear, respectively. For a third of treatments, the dose/duration of individual sessions was not clear and for a quarter the schedule (interval, frequency, duration or timing) was not clear. Although the majority of problems were not picked up by reviewers and editors, when they were detected only about two-thirds were fixed before publication.

Conclusions

Journals wanting to publish the research of use to practising healthcare professionals need to pay more attention to descriptions of treatments. Our checklist, may be useful for reviewers, and editors and could help ensure that important details of treatments are provided before papers are in the public domain.

SUBMITTER: Schroter S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3533061 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality of descriptions of treatments: a review of published randomised controlled trials.

Schroter Sara S Glasziou Paul P Heneghan Carl C

BMJ open 20121122 6

<h4>Objectives</h4>To be useable in clinical practise, treatments studied in trials must provide sufficient information to enable clinicians and researchers to replicate. We sought to assess the completeness of treatment descriptions in published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using a checklist and to determine the extent to which peer reviewers and editors comment on the quality of reporting of treatments.<h4>Design</h4>A cross-sectional study.<h4>Setting</h4>Trials published in the BMJ, a ...[more]

PMID: 23180392

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological quality of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in leading critical care nursing journals against the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Abstracts (CONSORT-A) checklist and to identify variables related with abstract reporting quality.DesignDescriptive methodological quality review.Data sourceWe searched the PubMed database and the websites of each included journal.Eligibility criteriaWe included RCT abstracts published between 2011 and 2021 in the first 11 Scopus-ranking (2021) critical care nursing journals that reported the results of RCTs in English that referred to the care of adult patients with acute/critical illness or their relatives and/or caregivers and conducted in ICUs.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent investigators extracted the data using a prespecified 17-item checklist directly derived from CONSORT-A. For the primary outcome, each item was evaluated whether it was adequately reported or not and descriptive statistics were reported. An overall score was calculated by summing the results of all items and multivariate linear regression was conducted to detect potential predictors.ResultsSeventy-eight RCT abstracts were included in this review. The items with the highest CONSORT-A adherence were authors, objective, conclusion, participants, interventions and outcome. The randomisation item had the lowest CONSORT-A adherence, followed by trial registration, funding source, harms or side effects, recruitment, blinding and outcome results. The average CONSORT-A score was 8.5±1.5 points (of the maximum 17.5 points). Multivariate analysis indicated that the categorised word score and publication date were positively associated with the overall CONSORT-A score, while the first author's country being in Asia was negatively associated with the overall CONSORT-A score.ConclusionsThe 78 RCT abstracts showed poor overall adherence to CONSORT-A. The results indicate that the methodological reporting quality of RCT abstracts in critical care nursing journals requires improvement to facilitate assessment of the applicability and relevance of the results reported.

Project description:BackgroundSham acupuncture is usually used to assess the specific effects of acupuncture. However, the reporting quality of sham acupuncture remains unclear despite its critical importance in understanding and analyzing the effects of acupuncture. This paper presents a literature review aimed at assessing the quality of reporting of sham acupuncture in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based on STRICTA 2010 and TIDieR-Placebo.MethodsThree electronic English-language databases (PubMed, MEDLINE and Embase) were searched from inception to March 7, 2022, and RCTs of sham acupuncture were identified. The reporting quality of sham acupuncture was assessed in accordance with the items recommended in STRICTA 2010 and TIDieR-Placebo. The reporting quality of other items related to sham acupuncture apart from items from these two checklists was also captured to further assess the reporting quality of sham acupuncture.ResultsA total of 609 eligible studies were included. For all of the items recommended in STRICTA 2010 and TIDieR-Placebo, 100% of the studies reported a brief name that described the sham acupuncture, 93.9% studies reported the needle type, and 90.0% reported the names of the points used. Other items for which the reporting rates were above 50% included the number, frequency and duration of treatment sessions; needle retention time; and number of needle insertions per subject per session. Overall, 49.4% of the studies revealed the rationale why sham acupuncture was chosen, 39.7% of the studies involving insertion processes reported the depth of insertion, and 37.9% of the studies reported the needle manufacturer. Other items for which the reporting rates were below 30% included practitioner-related information, response sought, evaluation of blinding, intervention mode and environment, assisting tools, and the extent to which the treatment was varied. The items "Modifications", "How well (planned)" and "How well (actual)" were not reported in any of the analyzed studies.ConclusionsThe overall reporting quality of sham acupuncture in RCTs was suboptimal. Although STRICTA 2010 and TIDieR-Placebo could be beneficial for describing sham acupuncture, neither can offer recommendations specifically for sham acupuncture. There is thus an urgent need to develop specialized guidelines for reporting sham acupuncture in clinical trials.

Project description:BackgroundCardiac arrest is a major public health concern worldwide. The extent and types of randomized controlled trials (RCT)-our most reliable source of clinical evidence-conducted in these high-risk patients over recent years are largely unknown.Methods and resultsWe performed a systematic review, identifying all RCTs published in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from 1995 to 2014 that focused on the acute treatment of nontraumatic cardiac arrest in adults. We then extracted data on the setting of study populations, types and timing of interventions studied, risk of bias, outcomes reported, and how these factors have changed over time. Over this 20-year period, 92 RCTs were published containing 64 309 patients (median, 225.5 per trial). Of these, 81 RCTs (88.0%) involved out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, whereas 4 (4.3%) involved in-hospital cardiac arrest and 7 (7.6%) included both. Eighteen RCTs (19.6%) were performed in the United States, 68 (73.9%) were performed outside the United States, and 6 (6.5%) were performed in both settings. Thirty-eight RCTs (41.3%) evaluated drug therapy, 39 (42.4%) evaluated device therapy, and 15 (16.3%) evaluated protocol improvements. Seventy-four RCTs (80.4%) examined interventions during the cardiac arrest, 15 (16.3%) examined post cardiac arrest treatment, and 3 (3.3%) studied both. Overall, reporting of the risk of bias was limited. The most common outcome reported was return of spontaneous circulation: 86 (93.5%) with only 22 (23.9%) reporting survival beyond 6 months. Fifty-three RCTs (57.6%) reported global ordinal outcomes, whereas 15 (16.3%) reported quality-of-life. RCTs in the past 5 years were more likely to be focused on protocol improvements and postcardiac arrest care.ConclusionsImportant gaps in RCTs of cardiac arrest treatments exist, especially those examining in-hospital cardiac arrest, protocol improvement, postcardiac arrest care, and long-term or quality-of-life outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundOpinions and practices vary around the issue of performing multiple statistical tests in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We carried out a study to collate information about opinions and practices using a methodological rapid review and a survey, specifically of publicly funded pragmatic RCTs that are not seeking marketing authorisation. The aim was to identify the circumstances under which researchers would make a statistical adjustment for multiplicity.MethodsA review was performed extracting information from articles reporting primary analyses of pragmatic RCTs in one of seven high quality medical journals, in January to June (inclusive) 2018. A survey (Survey Monkey) eliciting opinions and practices around multiplicity was distributed to the 47 registered clinical trials units (CTUs) in the UK.ResultsOne hundred and thirty-eight RCTs were included in the review, and survey responses were received from 27/47 (57%) CTUs. Both the review and survey indicated that adjusting for multiplicity was considered most important for multiple treatment comparisons; adjustment was performed for 11/23 (48%) published trials, and 24/27 (89%) CTU statisticians reported they would consider adjustment. Opinions and practices varied around adjustment for multiplicity arising from multiple primary outcomes and interim analyses. Adjustment was considered less important for multiplicity due to multiple secondary outcomes (adjustment performed for 17/136 [13%] published trials and 3/27 [11%] CTU statisticians would consider adjustment) and subgroup analyses (8/85 [9%] published trials adjusted and 6/27 CTU [22%] statisticians would consider adjustment).ConclusionsThere is variation in opinions about adjustment for multiplicity among both statisticians reporting RCTs and applied statisticians working in CTUs. Further guidance is needed on the circumstances in which adjustment should be considered in relation to primary trial hypotheses, and if there are any situations in which adjustment would be recommended in the context of secondary analyses.

Project description:BackgroundThe objective of this study was to describe randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in child health published between 1948 and 2006, in terms of quantity, methodological quality, and publication and trial characteristics. We used the Trials Register of the Cochrane Child Health Field for overall trends and a sample from this to explore trial characteristics in more detail.Methodology/principal findingsWe extracted descriptive data on a random sample of 578 trials. Ninety-six percent of the trials were published in English; the percentage of child-only trials was 90.5%. The most frequent diagnostic categories were infectious diseases (13.2%), behavioural and psychiatric disorders (11.6%), neonatal critical care (11.4%), respiratory disorders (8.9%), non-critical neonatology (7.9%), and anaesthesia (6.5%). There were significantly fewer child-only studies (i.e., more mixed child and adult studies) over time (P = 0.0460). The proportion of RCTs to CCTs increased significantly over time (P<0.0001), as did the proportion of multicentre trials (P = 0.002). Significant increases over time were found in methodological quality (Jadad score) (P<0.0001), the proportion of double-blind studies (P<0.0001), and studies with adequate allocation concealment (P<0.0001). Additionally, we found an improvement in reporting over time: adequate description of withdrawals and losses to follow-up (P<0.0001), sample size calculations (P<0.0001), and intention-to-treat analysis (P<0.0001). However, many trials still do not describe their level of blinding, and allocation concealment was inadequately reported in the majority of studies across the entire time period. The proportion of studies with industry funding decreased slightly over time (P = 0.003), and these studies were more likely to report positive conclusions (P = 0.028).Conclusions/significanceThe quantity and quality of pediatric controlled trials has increased over time; however, much work remains to be done, particularly in improving methodological issues around conduct and reporting of trials.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Low back pain is a common health complaint resulting in substantial economic burden. Each year, upwards of 20 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions for non-specific low back pain are published. Use of the term non-specific low back pain has been criticised on the grounds of encouraging heterogeneity and hampering interpretation of findings due to possible heterogeneous causes, challenging meta-analyses. We explored selection criteria used in trials of treatments for nsLBP. METHODS:A systematic review of English-language reports of RCTs in nsLBP population samples, published between 2006 and 2012, identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases, using a mixed-methods approach to analysis. Study inclusion and exclusion criteria were extracted, thematically categorised, and then descriptive statistics were used to summarise the prevalence by emerging category. RESULTS:We included 168 studies. Two inclusion themes (anatomical area, and symptoms and signs) were identified. Anatomical area was most reported as between costal margins and gluteal folds (n =?8, 5%), while low back pain (n =?150, 89%) with or without referred leg pain (n =?27, 16%) was the most reported symptom. Exclusion criteria comprised 21 themes. Previous or scheduled surgery (n =?84, 50%), pregnancy (n =?81, 48%), malignancy (n =?78, 46%), trauma (n =?63, 37%) and psychological conditions (n =?58, 34%) were the most common. Sub-themes of exclusion criteria mostly related to neurological signs and symptoms: nerve root compromise (n =?44, 26%), neurological signs (n =?34, 20%) or disc herniation (n =?30, 18%). Specific conditions that were most often exclusion criteria were spondylolisthesis (n =?35, 21%), spinal stenosis (n =?31, 18%) or osteoporosis (n =?27, 16%). CONCLUSION:RCTs of interventions for non-specific low back pain have incorporated diverse inclusion and exclusion criteria. Guidance on standardisation of inclusion and exclusion criteria for nsLBP trials will increase clinical homogeneity, facilitating greater interpretation of between-trial comparisons and meta-analyses. We propose a template for reporting inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Project description:IntroductionPublishing protocols of randomized controlled trials (RCT) facilitates a more detailed description of study rational, design, and related ethical and safety issues, which should promote transparency. Little is known about how the practice of publishing protocols developed over time. Therefore, this study describes the worldwide trends in volume and methodological quality of published RCT protocols.MethodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE, identifying RCT protocols published over a decade from 1 September 2001. Data were extracted on quality characteristics of RCT protocols. The primary outcome, methodological quality, was assessed by individual methodological characteristics (adequate generation of allocation, concealment of allocation and intention-to-treat analysis). A comparison was made by publication period (First, September 2001- December 2004; Second, January 2005-May 2008; Third, June 2008-September 2011), geographical region and medical specialty.ResultsThe number of published RCT protocols increased from 69 in the first, to 390 in the third period (p<0.0001). Internal medicine and paediatrics were the most common specialty topics. Whereas most published RCT protocols in the first period originated from North America (n = 30, 44%), in the second and third period this was Europe (respectively, n = 65, 47% and n = 190, 48%, p = 0.02). Quality of RCT protocols was higher in Europe and Australasia, compared to North America (OR = 0.63, CI = 0.40-0.99, p = 0.04). Adequate generation of allocation improved with time (44%, 58%, 67%, p = 0.001), as did concealment of allocation (38%, 53%, 55%, p = 0.03). Surgical protocols had the highest quality among the three specialty topics used in this study (OR = 1.94, CI = 1.09-3.45, p = 0.02).ConclusionPublishing RCT protocols has become popular, with a five-fold increase in the past decade. The quality of published RCT protocols also improved, although variation between geographical regions and across medical specialties was seen. This emphasizes the importance of international standards of comprehensive training in RCT methodology.

Dataset Information

Quality of descriptions of treatments: a review of published randomised controlled trials.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Quality of descriptions of treatments: a review of published randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets