Standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery: Can we do better?

Annals of Surgery

Volumn 244, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 663-667

  Balasubramanian, Sabapathy P ^a   Wiener, Martin ^a   Alshameeri, Zeiad ^a   Tiruvoipati, Ravindranath ^b   Elbourne, Diana ^c   Reed, Malcolm W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b GLENFIELD HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; DECISION MAKING; GENERAL SURGERY; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; MEDICAL PRACTICE; METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL;

HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; QUESTIONNAIRES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SURGERY;

EID: 33750339929     PISSN: 00034932     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000217640.11224.05     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663-694.
2. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408-412.
3. Moher D. CONSORT: an evolving tool to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. JAMA. 1998;279:1489-1491.
4. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001;323:42-46.
5. Huwiler-Muntener K, Juni P, Junker C, et al. Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA. 2002;287:2801-2804.
6. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, et al. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA. 1994;272:125-128.
7. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Lancet. 2001;357:1191-1194.
8. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276:637-639.
9. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials. 1995;16:62-73.
10. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1-12.
11. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA. 2001;285:1992-1995.
12. Junker CA. Adherence to published standards of reporting: a comparison of placebo-controlled trials published in English or German. JAMA. 1998;280:247-249.
13. Horton R. Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet. 1996;347:984-985.
14. Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA. 1994;272:96-97.
15. Bath FJ, Owen VE, Bath PM. Quality of full and final publications reporting acute stroke trials: a systematic review. Stroke. 1998;29:2203-2210.
16. Mills E, Loke YK, Wu P, et al. Determining the reporting quality of RCTs in clinical pharmacology. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;58:61-65.
17. Jadad AR. Randomized Controlled Trials. London: BMJ, 1998.
18. Grimes DA. Randomized controlled trials: 'it ain't necessarily so.' Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78:703-704.
19. Altman DG, Bland JM. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ. 1995;311:485.
20. Lee YJ, Ellenberg JH, Hirtz DG, et al. Analysis of clinical trials by treatment actually received: is it really an option? Stat Med. 1991;10:1595-1605.
21. Lachin JL. Statistical considerations in the intent-to-treat principle. Control Clin Trials. 2000;21:167-189.
22. Lewis JA, Machin D. Intention to treat-who should use ITT? Br J Cancer. 1993;68:647-650.
23. Ruiz-Canela M, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, de Irala-Estevez J. Intention to treat analysis is related to methodological quality. BMJ. 2000;320:1007-1008.
24. Schulz KF, Grimes DA, Altman DG, et al. Blinding and exclusions after allocation in randomized controlled trials: survey of published parallel group trials in obstetrics and gynaecology. BMJ. 1996;312:742-744.
25. Tiruvoipati R, Balasubramanian SP, Atturu G, et al. Improving the quality of reporting randomized controlled trials in cardiothoracic surgery: the way forward. J Thorac Cardio Surg. 2006. In press.