Association between framing of the research question using the PICOT format and reporting quality of randomized controlled trials

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 10, Issue , 2010, Pages

  Rios, Lorena P ^a   Ye, Chenglin ^b   Thabane, Lehana ^a,b  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ENDOCRINOLOGY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EVALUATION; HUMAN; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; ENDOCRINOLOGY; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; HUMANS; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 77949343560     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-11     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. The scandal of poor medical research. DG Altman, BMJ 1994 308 283 284 8124111
2. Standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery: can we do better? SP Balasubramanian M Wiener Z Alshameeri R Tiruvoipati D Elbourne MW Reed, Ann Surg 2006 244 663 667 10.1097/01.sla. 0000217640.11224.05 17060756
3. Evidence of improving quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in subfertility. S Dias R McNamee A Vail, Hum Reprod 2006 21 2617 2627 10.1093/humrep/del236 16793995
4. Determining the reporting quality of RCTs in clinical pharmacology. E Mills YK Loke P Wu VM Montori D Perri D Moher G Guyatt, Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004 58 61 65 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2004.2092.x 15206994
5. A critical assessment of the quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials in the urology literature. CD Scales Jr RD Norris SA Keitz BL Peterson GM Preminger J Vieweg P Dahm, J Urol 2007 177 1090 1094 10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.027 17296417
6. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. DG Altman KF Schulz D Moher M Egger F Davidoff D Elbourne PC Gotzsche T Lang G Consort, Ann Intern Med 2001 134 663 694 11304107
7. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. C Begg M Cho S Eastwood R Horton D Moher I Olkin R Pitkin D Rennie KF Schulz D Simel DF Stroup, JAMA 1996 276 637 639 10.1001/jama.276.8.637 8773637
8. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. D Moher KF Schulz DG Altman, Ann Intern Med 2001 134 657 662 11304106
9. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. AC Plint D Moher A Morrison K Schulz DG Altman C Hill I Gaboury, Med J Aust 2006 185 263 267 16948622
10. Forming research questions. R Haynes, Clinical Epidemiology: How to do Clinical Practice Research Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Haynes R, Sacket D, Guyatt G, Tugwell P, 3 2006 3 14
11. Proposing a good research question: a simple formula for success. RE Clouse, Gastrointest Endosc 2005 61 279 280 10.1016/S0016-5107(04)02579-9 15729240
12. Posing the research question: not so simple. L Thabane T Thomas C Ye J Paul, Can J Anesth 2009 56 71 79 10.1007/s12630-008-9007-4 19247780
13. Choosing the best research design for each question. DL Sackett JE Wennberg, BMJ 1997 315 1636 9448521
14. Deciding upon and refining a research question. P Stone, Palliat Med 2002 16 265 267 10.1191/0269216302pm562xx 12047007
15. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? D Moher B Pham A Jones DJ Cook AR Jadad M Moher P Tugwell TP Klassen, Lancet 1998 352 609 613 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)01085-X 9746022
16. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. KF Schulz I Chalmers RJ Hayes DG Altman, JAMA 1995 273 408 412 10.1001/jama.273.5.408 7823387
17. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. S Hollis F Campbell, BMJ 1999 319 670 674 10480822
18. Intention-to-treat principle. VM Montori GH Guyatt, CMAJ 2001 165 1339 1341 11760981
19. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. JR Landis GG Koch, Biometrics 1977 33 159 174 10.2307/2529310 843571
20. Models for longitudinal data: A generalized estimating equation approach. SL Zeger KY Liang PS Albert, Biometrics 1988 44 1049 1060 10.2307/2531734 3233245
21. Forming research questions. B Haynes, J Clin Epidemiol 2006 59 881 886 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.006 16895808
22. Defining the review question and developing criteria for including studies. D O'Connor S Green JPT Higgins, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Higgins JPT, Green S, 2008 83 94
23. An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods. PJ Devereaux PT Choi S El-Dika M Bhandari VM Montori HJ Schunemann AX Garg JW Busse D Heels-Ansdell WA Ghali BJ Manns G Guyatt, J Clin Epidemiol 2004 57 1232 1236 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.03.017 15617948
24. Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: cohort study. J Pildal AW Chan A Hrobjartsson E Forfang DG Altman PC Gotzsche, BMJ 2005 330 1049 10.1136/bmj.38414.422650.8F 15817527
25. Scales to Assess the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review. SA Olivo LG Macedo IC Gadotti J Fuentes T Stanton DJ Magee, Phys Ther 2008 88 156 175 18073267
26. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. P Juni A Witschi R Bloch M Egger, JAMA 1999 282 1054 1060 10.1001/jama.282.11. 1054 10493204
27. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. P Juni DG Altman M Egger, BMJ 2001 323 42 46 10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42 11440947
28. No role for quality scores in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. P Whiting R Harbord J Kleijnen, BMC Med Res Methodol 2005 5 19 10.1186/1471-2288-5-19 15918898
29. Scoring the quality of clinical trials. P Juni M Egger, JAMA 2000 283 1422 1423 10732924
30. Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned. P Herbison J Hay-Smith WJ Gillespie, J Clin Epidemiol 2006 59 1249 1256 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.008 17098567