Misleading abstract conclusions in randomized controlled trials in rheumatology: Comparison of the abstract conclusions and the results section

Joint Bone Spine

Volumn 79, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 262-267

  Mathieu, Sylvain ^a,b,c,d   Giraudeau, Bruno ^a,e,f   Soubrier, Martin ^d   Ravaud, Philippe ^a,b,c  

^a INSERM   (France)

^b HÔTEL DIEU   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

^d SERVICE DE RHUMATOLOGIE   (France)

^e UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF TOURS   (France)

^f UNIVERSITÉ DE TOURS   (France)

Author keywords

Misleading conclusions; Randomized controlled trials; Reporting; Transparency

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; DATA ANALYSIS; HUMAN; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; OSTEOARTHRITIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; SPONDYLOARTHROPATHY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING AS TOPIC; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; OSTEOARTHRITIS; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RHEUMATOLOGY;

EID: 84860596518     PISSN: 1297319X     EISSN: 17787254     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2011.05.008     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Mc Donald S. Number and size of randomized trials reported in general health care journals from 1948 to 1997. Int J Epidemiol 2002, 31:125-127.
2. Altman D.G., Schulz K.F., Moher D., et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001, 134:663-694.
3. DerSimonian R., Charette L.J., McPeek B., et al. Reporting on methods in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1982, 306:1332-1337.
4. Godlee F. Publishing study protocols: making them more visible will improve registration, reporting and recruitment. BMC News Views 2001, 2:4.
5. Chan A.W. Bias, spin, and misreporting: time for full access to trial protocols and results. PLoS Med 2008, 5:e230.
6. Poynard T. évaluation de la qualité méthodologique des essais thérapeutiques randomisés. Presse Med 1988, 17:315-318.
7. Moher D., Schulz K.F., Altman D., et al. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001, 285:1987-1991.
8. Kane R.L., Wang J., Garrard J. Reporting in randomized clinical trials improved after adoption of the CONSORT statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2007, 60:241-249.
9. Moher D., Jones A., Lepage L., et al. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA 2001, 285:1992-1995.
10. Mills E.J., Wu P., Gagnier J., et al. The quality of randomized trial reporting in leading medical journals since the revised CONSORT statement. Contemp Clin Trials 2005, 26:480-487.
11. Plint A.C., Moher D., Morrison A., et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 2006, 185:263-267.
12. Hopewell S., Clarke M., Moher D., et al. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2008, 5:e20.
13. Chan A.W., Krleza-Jerić K., Schmid I., et al. Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ 2004, 171:735-740.
14. Chan A.W., Hro'bjartsson A., Haahr M.T., et al. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004, 291:2457-2465.
15. Al-Marzouki S., Roberts I., Evans S., et al. Selective reporting in clinical trials: analysis of trial protocols accepted by The Lancet. Lancet 2008, 372:201.
16. Dwan K., Altman D.G., Arnaiz J.A., et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One 2008, 3:e3081.
17. Higgins J.P.T., Altman D.G. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 2008, NJ: Wiley, Hoboken, p. 187-241. J.P.T. Higgins, S. Green (Eds.).
18. Le Henanff A., Giraudeau B., Baron G., et al. Quality of reporting of non inferiority and equivalence randomized trials. JAMA 2006, 295:1147-1151.
19. Gøtzsche P.C. Readers as research detectives. Trials 2009, 10:2.
20. Al-Marzouki S., Roberts I., Marshall T., et al. The effect of scientific misconduct on the results of clinical trials: a Delphi survey. Contemp Clin Trials 2005, 26:331-337.
21. Jonville-Béra A.P., Giraudeau B., Autret-Leca E. Reporting of drug tolerance in randomized clinical trials: when data conflict with author's conclusions. Ann Int Med 2006, 144:306.
22. Dimick J.B., Diener-West M., Lipsett P.A. Negative results of randomized clinical trials published in the surgical literature: equivalency or error?. Arch Surg 2001, 136:796-800.
23. Bero L., Oostvogel F., Baccheti P., et al. Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug-drug comparisons: why some statins appear more efficacious than others. Plos Med 2007, 4:e184.
24. http://www.nia.nih.gov/NR/rdonlyres/D95A1337-6340-4C95-96F9-ABD3FD3C0F03/0/NIAGlossaryofClinicalResearchTermsFINAL.doc.
25. Freiman J.A., Chalmers T.C., Smith H., et al. The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. Survey of 71 "negative" trials. N Engl J Med 1978, 299:690-694.
26. Moher D., Dulberg C.S., Wells G.A. Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1994, 272:122-124.
27. Altman D.G., Bland J.M. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ 1995, 311:485.
28. Dickersin K. How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data. AIDS Educ Prev 1997, 9:15-21.
29. Johnson R.T., Dickersin K. Publication bias against negative results from clinical trials: three of the seven deadly sins. Nat Clin Pract Neurol 2007, 3:590-591.
30. Olson C.M., Rennie D., Cook D., et al. Publication bias in editorial decision making. JAMA 2002, 287:2825-2828.
31. De Angelis C.D., Drazen J.M., Frizelle F.A., et al. Is this clinical trial fully registered? A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal editors. Lancet 2005, 365:1827-1829.
32. Mathieu S., Boutron I., Moher D., et al. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2009, 302:977.
33. Goldbeck-Wood S. Changes between protocol and manuscript should be declared at submission. BMJ 2001, 322:1460-1461.
34. Siegel J.P. Editorial review of protocols for clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1990, 323:1355.
35. Ioannidis J.P., Evans S.J., Gotzsche P.C., et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the Consort statement. Ann Intern Med 2004, 141:781-788.
36. Ioannidis J.P., Contopoulos-Ioannidis D.G. Reporting of safety data from randomised trials. Lancet 1998, 352:1752-1753.
37. Lee B.B. A misleading conclusion and abstract. Anesth Analg 2003, 96:626-633.
38. Mills E., Montori V.M., Thabane L. Angiotensine-converting enzyme inhibitor meta-analysis provides misleading conclusion. Am J Cardiol 2004, 93:240-243.
39. Postma M.J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination in the Netherlands: recent publication reinforces favourable cost-effectiveness despite misleading conclusion. Vaccine 2010, 28:873-874.