How Well Are Randomized Controlled Trials Reported in the Dermatology Literature?

Adetugbo, Kayode; Williams, Hywel C

doi:10.1001/archderm.136.3.381

Cited by 116 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies similar to ours have been conducted in other specialties (3,(21)(22)(23)(24). These also show problems in the conduct and design of trials in other specialties.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

The Number, Quality, and Coverage of Randomized Controlled Trials in Nephrology

Strippoli

Craig²,

Schena³

2004

Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

294

200

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are the optimal study design to answer intervention questions. The authors evaluated the number, quality, and coverage of RCT in nephrology. MEDLINE was searched using the relevant medical subject headings for nephrology and 12 major specialties in internal medicine, limited by "randomized controlled trial" as a publication type. A random selection of 160 RCT in nephrology (40 for each decade) published since 1966 and an additional 270 RCT from ongoing or published Cochrane systematic reviews in various areas of nephrology, dialysis, and transplantation were evaluated for quality of reporting using standard criteria. The number of RCT published in nephrology from 1966 to 2002 (2779) is fewer than all other specialties of internal medicine (range: 5335 in hematology to 27109 in cardiology) with the proportion of all citations which are RCT being the third lowest (1.15%). There has been an increase in both indices from 1966 to 1996, but not at a greater rate than other specialties, and there has been no increase over the past 5 yr. Some areas of nephrology, in particular glomerulonephritis, are clear outliers with very low numbers of RCT to guide clinical decision-making. Overall the quality of RCT reporting in nephrology is low and has not improved over the past 30 yr with unclear allocation concealment (89%), lack of reported blinding of outcome assessors (92%), and failure to perform "intention-to-treat analysis" (50%) particularly frequent. The challenges of improving the quality and quantity of trials in nephrology are substantial, but they can be overcome by using standard guidelines and checklists for trial reporting, greater attention to the trial methods and not just the results, involving experts in trial design and reporting, multicenter collaboration, and larger and simpler trials.Because randomized controlled trials (RCT) are designed to provide unconfounded estimates of intervention effects, they are the ideal study type to answer intervention questions. However, not all RCT provide valid results. Validity of RCT depends on the underlying methodological quality (1). Allocation concealment, blinding, intention-to-treat analysis, and loss to follow-up are the critical items in the design and conduct of RCT, and inadequately conceived and conducted RCT, like observational studies, may overestimate or underestimate true effects of interventions (2-11).To our knowledge, there has never been a systematic evaluation of the number, coverage, and quality of RCT in nephrology. This was the aim of our study. If problems were identified, we also sought to propose feasible solutions. Materials and Methods Number and Proportion of RCT in Nephrology Compared with Other SpecialtiesThe medical subject heading (MESH) tree structure in MEDLINE (2002) was used to identify all major headings relevant to the primary specialties of internal medicine. Specifically, eight areas of internal medicine were searched by using the single broadest heading in the MeSH structure (cardiolog...

show abstract

“…Studies similar to ours have been conducted in other specialties (3,(21)(22)(23)(24). These also show problems in the conduct and design of trials in other specialties.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

The Number, Quality, and Coverage of Randomized Controlled Trials in Nephrology

Strippoli

Craig²,

Schena³

2004

Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

294

200

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, to the former, the CON-SORT 2001 seems more suitable. There is also a mounting evidence that suggests that the quality of trial reporting inside specific journals may be far worse than, in general, medicine journals (27,28,32,48,49). The issue of reporting power in TCM RCTs is troubling, previous study (39) has noted that a sizable number of RCTs being conducted were done so with inadequate power to detect the presence of a treatment effect by readers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist on reporting of randomized clinical trials in traditional Chinese medicine

Liu¹,

Zhang²,

Wen

et al. 2015

J Evidence Based Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scholars have noted that evaluations and clinical trials vary in quality, and that their reporting is often incomplete (e.g., Adetugbo and Williams 2000;Perry et al 2010). In response, efforts have been undertaken to produce guidance regarding the conduct of primary studies (e.g., the CONSORT statement: Schulz et al 2010;STROBE: von Elm et al 2007), and SRs of them (e.g., AMSTAR, GRADE, PRISMA, RAMESES).…”

Section: Existing Scales For Assessing the Evidence Basementioning

confidence: 99%

Introducing EMMIE: an evidence rating scale to encourage mixed-method crime prevention synthesis reviews

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This paper describes the need for, and the development of, a coding system to distil the quality and coverage of systematic reviews of the evidence relating to crime prevention interventions. The starting point for the coding system concerns the evidence needs of policymakers and practitioners. Methods The proposed coding scheme (EMMIE) builds on previous scales that have been developed to assess the probity, coverage and utility of evidence both in health and criminal justice. It also draws on the principles of realist synthesis and review. Results The proposed EMMIE scale identifies five dimensions to which systematic reviews intended to inform crime prevention should speak. These are the Effect of intervention, the identification of the causal Mechanism(s) through which interventions are intended to work, the factors that Moderate their impact, the articulation of practical Implementation issues, and the Economic costs of intervention. Conclusions Systematic reviews of crime prevention, and the primary studies on which they are based, typically address the question of effect size, but are often silent on the other dimensions of EMMIE. This lacuna of knowledge is unhelpful to practitioners who want to know more than what might work to reduce crime. The EMMIE framework is intended to encourage the collection of primary data regarding these issues and the synthesis of such knowledge in future systematic reviews.

show abstract

How Well Are Randomized Controlled Trials Reported in the Dermatology Literature?

Cited by 116 publications

References 35 publications

The Number, Quality, and Coverage of Randomized Controlled Trials in Nephrology

The Number, Quality, and Coverage of Randomized Controlled Trials in Nephrology

Impact of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist on reporting of randomized clinical trials in traditional Chinese medicine

Introducing EMMIE: an evidence rating scale to encourage mixed-method crime prevention synthesis reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About