Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality

被引:293
作者
Huwiler-Müntener, K
Jüni, P
Junker, C
Egger, M
机构
[1] Univ Bern, Dept Social & Prevent Med, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland
[2] Univ Bern, Dept Rheumatol & Clin Immunol, Bern, Switzerland
[3] Univ Bristol, Dept Social Med, MRC, Hlth Serv Res Collaborat, Bristol, Avon, England
来源
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION | 2002年 / 287卷 / 21期
关键词
D O I
10.1001/jama.287.21.2801
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Context The evaluation of the methodologic quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is central to evidence-based health care. Important methodologic detail may, however, be omitted from published reports, and the quality of reporting is therefore often used as a proxy measure for methodologic quality. We examined the relationship between reporting quality and methodologic quality of published RCTs. Methods Study of 60 reports of placebo-controlled trials published in English-language journals from 1985 to 1997. Reporting quality was measured using a 25-item scale based on the 1996 issue of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). Concealment of allocation, appropriate blinding, and analysis according to the intention-to-treat principle were indicators of methodologic quality. Methodologic quality was compared between groups of trials defined by reporting quality scores of low, intermediate, and high. Reporting quality scores were compared between groups defined by high and low methodologic quality. Results Among 23 trials of low reporting quality (median score, 9 [range, 3.5-10.5]), allocation concealment was unclear for all but 1 trial, but there were 16 trials (70%) with adequate blinding and 9 trials (39%) that had been analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Among 18 trials of high reporting quality (median score, 18 [range 16.5-22.0]), there were 8 trials (44%) with adequate allocation concealment, 16 trials (89%) with adequate blinding, and 13 trials (72%) analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The median reporting score was 15.0 for the 33 trials that were analyzed according to intention-to-treat principle and 14.5 for the 14 trials with on-treatment analyses (P=.67). Conclusions Similar quality of reporting may hide important differences in methodologic quality, and well-conducted trials may be reported badly. A clear distinction should be made between these 2 dimensions of the quality of RCTs.
引用
收藏
页码:2801 / 2804
页数:4
相关论文
共 14 条
[1]   The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration [J].
Altman, DG ;
Schulz, KF ;
Moher, D ;
Egger, M ;
Davidoff, F ;
Elbourne, D ;
Gotzsche, PC ;
Lang, T .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2001, 134 (08) :663-694
[2]   Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials - The CONSORT statement [J].
Begg, C ;
Cho, M ;
Eastwood, S ;
Horton, R ;
Moher, D ;
Olkin, I ;
Pitkin, R ;
Rennie, D ;
Schulz, KF ;
Simel, D ;
Stroup, DF .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1996, 276 (08) :637-639
[3]   A METHOD FOR ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF A RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIAL [J].
CHALMERS, TC ;
SMITH, H ;
BLACKBURN, B ;
SILVERMAN, B ;
SCHROEDER, B ;
REITMAN, D ;
AMBROZ, A .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1981, 2 (01) :31-49
[4]   Physician interpretations and textbook definitions of blinding terminology in randomized controlled trials [J].
Devereaux, PJ ;
Manns, BJ ;
Ghali, WA ;
Quan, H ;
Lacchetti, C ;
Montori, VM ;
Bhandari, M ;
Guyatt, GH .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2001, 285 (15) :2000-2003
[5]   Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German [J].
Egger, E ;
ZellwegerZahner, T ;
Schneider, M ;
Junker, C ;
Lengeler, C ;
Antes, G .
LANCET, 1997, 350 (9074) :326-329
[6]   What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials [J].
Hollis, S ;
Campbell, F .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1999, 319 (7211) :670-+
[7]  
HUWILERMUNTENER K, 2000, THESIS U BERN BERN S
[8]   Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? [J].
Jadad, AR ;
Moore, RA ;
Carroll, D ;
Jenkinson, C ;
Reynolds, DJM ;
Gavaghan, DJ ;
McQuay, HJ .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1996, 17 (01) :1-12
[9]   Systematic reviews in health care -: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials [J].
Jüni, P ;
Altman, DG ;
Egger, M .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2001, 323 (7303) :42-46
[10]   Adherence to published standards of reporting - A comparison of placebo-controlled trials published in English or German [J].
Junker, CA .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 280 (03) :247-249