Dataset Information

Definitions of blinding in randomised controlled trials of interventions published in high-impact anaesthesiology journals: a methodological study and survey of authors.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To analyse the completeness of reporting of blinding in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions in anaesthesiology, the actual blinding status of various persons associated with an RCT and trial authors' interpretation of blinding terminology related to RCTs. METHODS:This was a methodological study and a cross-sectional survey. We analysed reporting related to blinding in published RCTs of interventions published in seven highly cited anaesthesiology journals from 2014 to 2016 and registered protocols in ClinicalTrials.gov. We surveyed corresponding authors of included RCTs about their definitions of blinding. The primary outcome was the number of RCTs that explicitly described who was blinded in a trial. Secondary outcomes were definitions of blinding terminology in the trials; trial authors' interpretation of blinding terminology; discrepancies in the blinding description within registered protocols and between registered protocols and publications. RESULTS:Out of 622 analysed RCTs, 38% were not explicitly described as either open label or blinded studies and 10% did not report any information about blinding or lack of blinding. Only one manuscript fully reported the status of blinding for various individuals that may be involved with a trial. The most common descriptor was that a trial was double-blind. We found discrepant information regarding blinding in the majority of registered protocols. Even when there were no discrepancies in the registration, we found discrepancies in the reporting of blinding between the majority of registered protocols and published manuscripts. The survey of authors (40 responses from 231 eligible authors; 17% response rate) of analysed RCTs showed that they differed in how they defined different levels of blinding in trials. CONCLUSIONS:Reporting of the blinding status of key individuals involved in analysed anaesthesiology RCTs was insufficient. For reporting guidelines, peer reviewers and editors should insist on clear information on who was blinded in a trial instead of using the term 'double-blind' for different blinding practices.

SUBMITTER: Penic A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7200040 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Definitions of blinding in randomised controlled trials of interventions published in high-impact anaesthesiology journals: a methodological study and survey of authors.

Penić Antonija A Begić Dinka D Balajić Karolina K Kowalski Martin M Marušić Ana A Puljak Livia L

BMJ open 20200412 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>To analyse the completeness of reporting of blinding in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions in anaesthesiology, the actual blinding status of various persons associated with an RCT and trial authors' interpretation of blinding terminology related to RCTs.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a methodological study and a cross-sectional survey. We analysed reporting related to blinding in published RCTs of interventions published in seven highly cited anaesthesiology journa ...[more]

PMID: 32284390

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable information to inform clinical practice and patient care. We aimed to map global clinical research publication activity through RCT-related articles in high-impact-factor medical journals over the past five decades. METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of articles published in the highest ranked medical journals with an impact factor?>?10 (according to Journal Citation Reports published in 2017). We searched PubMed/MEDLINE (from inception to December 31, 2017) for all RCT-related articles (e.g. primary RCTs, secondary analyses and methodology papers) published in high-impact-factor medical journals. For each included article, raw metadata were abstracted from the Web of Science. A process of standardization was conducted to unify the different terms and grammatical variants and to remove typographical, transcription and/or indexing errors. Descriptive analyses were conducted (including the number of articles, citations, most prolific authors, countries, journals, funding sources and keywords). Network analyses of collaborations between countries and co-words are presented. RESULTS:We included 39,305 articles (for the period 1965-2017) published in forty journals. The Lancet (n?=?3593; 9.1%), the Journal of Clinical Oncology (n?=?3343; 8.5%) and The New England Journal of Medicine (n?=?3275 articles; 8.3%) published the largest number of RCTs. A total of 154 countries were involved in the production of articles. The global productivity ranking was led by the United States (n?=?18,393 articles), followed by the United Kingdom (n?=?8028 articles), Canada (n?=?4548 articles) and Germany (n?=?4415 articles). Seventeen authors who had published 100 or more articles were identified; the most prolific authors were affiliated with Duke University (United States), Harvard University (United States) and McMaster University (Canada). The main funding institutions were the National Institutes of Health (United States), Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland), Pfizer (United States), Merck Sharp & Dohme (United States) and Novartis (Switzerland). The 100 most cited RCTs were published in nine journals, led by The New England Journal of Medicine (n?=?78 articles), The Lancet (n?=?9 articles) and JAMA (n?=?7 articles). These landmark contributions focused on novel methodological approaches (e.g. the "Bland-Altman method") and trials on the management of chronic conditions (e.g. diabetes control, hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women, multiple therapies for diverse cancers, cardiovascular therapies such as lipid-lowering statins, antihypertensive medications, and antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy). CONCLUSIONS:Our analysis identified authors, countries, funding institutions, landmark contributions and high-impact-factor medical journals publishing RCTs. Over the last 50?years, publication production in leading medical journals has increased, with Western countries leading in research but with low- and middle-income countries showing very limited representation.

Project description:BackgroundMost researchers in Uzbekistan prefer to publish their reports in journals of their home country. Moreover, the proportion of healthcare practitioners who prefer to use these national sources of information also remains high. However, the quality of publications from national journals, in post-Soviet countries, has not been systematically evaluated until now. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials' (RCTs) reports published in medical journals from Uzbekistan. We supposed that reports had at least minimal quality to contribute to the higher quality of healthcare.MethodsTo evaluate the quality of RCTs, we selected two journals from the list of national medical journals for which background information was provided. We decided to select articles from journals that had the highest subscription rate and were likely to have the highest impact on clinical decisions. The journals were Medical Journal of Uzbekistan and Paediatrics. Only issues published in 2007-2017 were considered for evaluation. Two evaluators independently scored RCTs and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) reported in the journals. The 5-point scale developed by Jadad et al. was used to evaluate the quality of reports. Consensus-based decision was made about the final score of each report.ResultsWe reviewed 1311 studies in the two journals and found 380 clinical trials reports for the final evaluation. Our main finding was that none of the reports received a final score of more than 1, with an absolute agreement between evaluators. A median score of the studied reports was equal to 0, predicting a very low quality of controlled trials reported in the national journals (Wilcoxon signed-rank test p = 1.0; 95% CI = 0-0).ConclusionsWe believe that quality of reports about controlled trials, in Uzbekistan, can be considered insufficient to contribute to the higher quality of care and patients' safety. In the worst case, such condition can cause serious damage to the public health and lead to ineffective use of resources in the country. Therefore, the better reporting and organization of RCTs and CCTs should become a main goal of all stakeholders interested in the effective and safe healthcare in the country.

Project description:BackgroundThe approximately 1100 medical journals now active in China are publishing a rapidly increasing number of research reports, including many studies identified by their authors as randomized controlled trials. It has been noticed that these reports mostly present positive results, and their quality and authenticity have consequently been called into question. We investigated the adequacy of randomization of clinical trials published in recent years in China to determine how many of them met acceptable standards for allocating participants to treatment groups.MethodsThe China National Knowledge Infrastructure electronic database was searched for reports of randomized controlled trials on 20 common diseases published from January 1994 to June 2005. From this sample, a subset of trials that appeared to have used randomization methods was selected. Twenty-one investigators trained in the relevant knowledge, communication skills and quality control issues interviewed the original authors of these trials about the participant randomization methods and related quality-control features of their trials.ResultsFrom an initial sample of 37,313 articles identified in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, we found 3137 apparent randomized controlled trials. Of these, 1452 were studies of conventional medicine (published in 411 journals) and 1685 were studies of traditional Chinese medicine (published in 352 journals). Interviews with the authors of 2235 of these reports revealed that only 207 studies adhered to accepted methodology for randomization and could on those grounds be deemed authentic randomized controlled trials (6.8%, 95% confidence interval 5.9-7.7). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of authenticity between randomized controlled trials of traditional interventions and those of conventional interventions. Randomized controlled trials conducted at hospitals affiliated to medical universities were more likely to be authentic than trials conducted at level 3 and level 2 hospitals (relative risk 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.18-2.13, and relative risk 14.42, 95% confidence interval 9.40-22.10, respectively). The likelihood of authenticity was higher in level 3 hospitals than in level 2 hospitals (relative risk 9.32, 95% confidence interval 5.83-14.89). All randomized controlled trials of pre-market drug clinical trial were authentic by our criteria. Of the trials conducted at university-affiliated hospitals, 56.3% were authentic (95% confidence interval 32.0-81.0).ConclusionMost reports of randomized controlled trials published in some Chinese journals lacked an adequate description of randomization. Similarly, most so called 'randomized controlled trials' were not real randomized controlled trials owing to a lack of adequate understanding on the part of the authors of rigorous clinical trial design. All randomized controlled trials of pre-market drug clinical trial included in this research were authentic. Randomized controlled trials conducted by authors in high level hospitals, especially in hospitals affiliated to medical universities had a higher rate of authenticity. That so many non-randomized controlled trials were published as randomized controlled trials reflected the fact that peer review needs to be improved and a good practice guide for peer review including how to identify the authenticity of the study urgently needs to be developed.

Project description:BackgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not always well reported, especially in terms of their methodological descriptions. This study aimed to investigate the adherence of methodological reporting complying with CONSORT and explore associated trial level variables in the Chinese nursing care field.MethodsIn June 2012, we identified RCTs published in five leading Chinese nursing journals and included trials with details of randomized methods. The quality of methodological reporting was measured through the methods section of the CONSORT checklist and the overall CONSORT methodological items score was calculated and expressed as a percentage. Meanwhile, we hypothesized that some general and methodological characteristics were associated with reporting quality and conducted a regression with these data to explore the correlation. The descriptive and regression statistics were calculated via SPSS 13.0.ResultsIn total, 680 RCTs were included. The overall CONSORT methodological items score was 6.34 ± 0.97 (Mean ± SD). No RCT reported descriptions and changes in "trial design," changes in "outcomes" and "implementation," or descriptions of the similarity of interventions for "blinding." Poor reporting was found in detailing the "settings of participants" (13.1%), "type of randomization sequence generation" (1.8%), calculation methods of "sample size" (0.4%), explanation of any interim analyses and stopping guidelines for "sample size" (0.3%), "allocation concealment mechanism" (0.3%), additional analyses in "statistical methods" (2.1%), and targeted subjects and methods of "blinding" (5.9%). More than 50% of trials described randomization sequence generation, the eligibility criteria of "participants," "interventions," and definitions of the "outcomes" and "statistical methods." The regression analysis found that publication year and ITT analysis were weakly associated with CONSORT score.ConclusionsThe completeness of methodological reporting of RCTs in the Chinese nursing care field is poor, especially with regard to the reporting of trial design, changes in outcomes, sample size calculation, allocation concealment, blinding, and statistical methods.

Project description:Objectives (1) To assess endorsement of trial registration in author instructions of urology-related journals and (2) to assess whether randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of urology were effectively registered. Design Cross-sectional study of author instructions and published trials. Setting Journals publishing in the field of urology. Participants First, the authors analysed author instructions of 55 urology-related journals indexed in 'Journal Citation Reports 2009' (12/2010). The authors divided these journals in two groups: those requiring and those not mentioning trial registration as a precondition for publication. Second, the authors chose the five journals with the highest impact factor (IF) from each group. Intervention MEDLINE search to identify RCTs published in these 10 journals in 2009 (01/2011); search of the clinical trials meta-search interface of WHO (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) for RCTs that lacked information about registration (01-03/2011). Two authors independently assessed the information. Outcome measures Proportion of journals providing advice about trial registration and proportion of trials registered. Results Of 55 journals analysed, 26 (47.3%) provided some editorial advice about trial registration. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration explicitly (p=0.015). Of 106 RCTs published in 2009, 63 were registered (59.4%) with a tendency to an increase after 2005 (83.3%, p=0.035). 71.4% (30/42) of the RCTs that were published in journals mentioning and requiring registration, and 51.6% (33/64) of the RCTs that were published in journals that did not mention trial registration explicitly were registered. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.04). Conclusions The existence of a statement about trial registration in author instructions resulted in a higher proportion of registered RCTs in those journals. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration.

Dataset Information

Definitions of blinding in randomised controlled trials of interventions published in high-impact anaesthesiology journals: a methodological study and survey of authors.

Publications

Definitions of blinding in randomised controlled trials of interventions published in high-impact anaesthesiology journals: a methodological study and survey of authors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets