Quality of reporting clinical trials published in five leading Sri Lankan medical journals

Abeysena, Chrishantha; Poddalgoda, Indeewari

doi:10.1111/jebm.12069

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have assessed the overall methodological quality of scientific studies published in biomedical journals and concluded that the methodological quality of published research does not meet accepted standards. 2–7 While the overall assessment of the methodological quality of scientific research has been performed, the methodological quality of studies with positive versus negative findings in clinical medicine has not been compared.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in Indian medical journals: a systematic review

Charan¹,

Chaudhari

Jackson

et al. 2015

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesPublished negative studies should have the same rigour of methodological quality as studies with positive findings. However, the methodological quality of negative versus positive studies is not known. The objective was to assess the reported methodological quality of positive versus negative studies published in Indian medical journals.DesignA systematic review (SR) was performed of all comparative studies published in Indian medical journals with a clinical science focus and impact factor >1 between 2011 and 2013. The methodological quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies. The results were considered positive if the primary outcome was statistically significant and negative otherwise. When the primary outcome was not specified, we used data on the first outcome reported in the history followed by the results section. Differences in various methodological quality domains between positive versus negative studies were assessed by Fisher's exact test.ResultsSeven journals with 259 comparative studies were included in this SR. 24% (63/259) were RCTs, 24% (63/259) cohort studies, and 49% (128/259) case–control studies. 53% (137/259) of studies explicitly reported the primary outcome. Five studies did not report sufficient data to enable us to determine if results were positive or negative. Statistical significance was determined by p value in 78.3% (199/254), CI in 2.8% (7/254), both p value and CI in 11.8% (30/254), and only descriptive in 6.3% (16/254) of studies. The overall methodological quality was poor and no statistically significant differences between reporting of methodological quality were detected between studies with positive versus negative findings.ConclusionsThere was no difference in the reported methodological quality of positive versus negative studies. However, the uneven reporting of positive versus negative studies (72% vs 28%) indicates a publication bias in Indian medical journals with an impact factor of >1.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in Indian medical journals: a systematic review

Charan¹,

Chaudhari

Jackson

et al. 2015

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Quality of reporting clinical trials published in five leading Sri Lankan medical journals

Abstract: Reporting of several essential recommendations remained suboptimal. Education and training of trial methods and awareness of the CONSORT and TREND statements and more attention to the quality of reporting may improve matters.

Cited by 1 publication

References 54 publications

Comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in Indian medical journals: a systematic review

Comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in Indian medical journals: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About