The randomised controlled trial (RCT) is the most robust design for assessing the efficacy and effectiveness of treatments.1 As a result, clinical decision-making has over decades been directed away from reliance based solely on the doctor's clinical experience towards a paradigm based on evidence derived from RCTs. The results of RCTs have subsequently been translated into guidelines containing evidence-graded recommendations which clinicians are encouraged to use as the basis of good clinical practice.2 If, however, the 'raw material' or trial is flawed, the conclusions cannot be trusted, hence the need to appraise critically the quality of the underpinning trial evidence.3 Quality is a multidimensional concept which relates to the design, conduct, and analysis of a trial, its clinical relevance, and its reporting.3 In most cases the RCT report is the only source for clinicians, guideline developers, and other researchers to judge the validity and generalisability of the results, so the quality of reporting of trials is of inherent interest. 4 It is then of considerable concern that Prim Care Respir J 2013; 22(4): 417-424 RESEARCH PAPERThe quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: a systematic review AbstractBackground: There are concerns about the reporting quality of asthma trials.

No abstract