Methodological Reporting of Randomized Clinical Trials in Major Gastroenterology and Hepatology Journals in 2006

被引:20
作者
Bai, Yu [1 ,2 ]
Gao, Jun [1 ,2 ]
Zou, Duo-Wu [1 ]
Li, Zhao-Shen [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Second Mil Med Univ, Changhai Hosp, Dept Gastroenterol, Evidence Based Med Grp, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[2] Second Mil Med Univ, Changhai Hosp, Ctr Clin Epidemiol, Shanghai, Peoples R China
关键词
QUALITY ASSESSMENT; EMPIRICAL-EVIDENCE; BIAS; VALIDITY; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1002/hep.22861
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
To determine the current quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology, we evaluated the methodological reporting of RCTs in six major gastroenterology and hepatology journals. The methodological quality, including generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, double-blinding, and sample size calculation; number of patients; disease area; and funding source was also retrieved from each trial, and the relevant trials were identified by searching MEDLINE in 2006 using a highly sensitive search strategy. The status of reporting the methodological quality of RCTs was descriptively reported. One hundred five trials were included in the final analysis; of these, 81% (85/105) reported adequate generation of the allocation sequence, 61% (64/105) reported adequate allocation concealment, 51% (54/105) were double-blind, and 75% (79/105) reported adequate sample size calculation. The reported methodological quality greatly improved when compared with historical cohorts. Conclusion: This study shows that there was substantial improvement in the reported methodological quality in the major gastroenterology and hepatology journals, but this quality can be further improved. (HEPATOLOGY 2009;49:2108-2112.)
引用
收藏
页码:2108 / 2112
页数:5
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]  
Als-Nielsen B., 2004, 12th Cochrane Colloquium: Bridging the Gaps
[2]  
2004 Oct 2-6
[3]  
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, P88
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2005, COCHRANE LIB
[5]   Statistical power of negative randomized controlled trials presented at American Society for Clinical Oncology annual meetings [J].
Bedard, Philippe L. ;
Krzyzanowska, Monika K. ;
Pintilie, Melania ;
Tannock, Ian F. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2007, 25 (23) :3482-3487
[6]   How consumers and policymakers can use systematic reviews for decision making [J].
Bero, LA ;
Jadad, AR .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1997, 127 (01) :37-42
[7]   BIAS IN TREATMENT ASSIGNMENT IN CONTROLLED CLINICAL-TRIALS [J].
CHALMERS, TC ;
CELANO, P ;
SACKS, HS ;
SMITH, H .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1983, 309 (22) :1358-1361
[8]   HOW STUDY DESIGN AFFECTS OUTCOMES IN COMPARISONS OF THERAPY .1. MEDICAL [J].
COLDITZ, GA ;
MILLER, JN ;
MOSTELLER, F .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 1989, 8 (04) :441-454
[9]   Quality assessment of reports on clinical trials in the Journal of Hepatology [J].
Gluud, C ;
Nikolova, D .
JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY, 1998, 29 (02) :321-327
[10]  
Higgins J., 2008, COCHRANE COLLABORATI, DOI DOI 10.1002/