Quality of descriptions of treatments: A review of published randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open

Volumn 2, Issue 6, 2012, Pages

  Schroter, Sara ^a,b   Glasziou, Paul ^b   Heneghan, Carl ^b  

^a BMJ   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BACKACHE; BRAIN TUMOR; CHECKLIST; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; HODGKIN DISEASE; HUMAN; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PEER REVIEW; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); WEIGHT REDUCTION;

EID: 84873871129     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001978     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, et al. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:657-62. (Pubitemid 32322244)
2. Plint AC, 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;185:263-7. (Pubitemid 44382877)
3. Thabane L, Chu R, Cuddy K, et al. What is the quality of reporting in weight loss intervention studies? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Int J Obes (Lond) 2007;31:1554-9. (Pubitemid 47482657)
4. Kober T, Trelle S, Engert A. Reporting of randomized controlled trials in Hodgkin lymphoma in biomedical journals. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:620-5. (Pubitemid 43904845)
5. Lai R, Chu R, Fraumeni M, et al. Quality of randomized controlled trials reporting in the primary treatment of brain tumors. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:1136-44. (Pubitemid 46638811)
6. Glenton C, Underland V, Kho M, et al. Summaries of findings, descriptions of treatments, and information about adverse effects would make reviews more informative. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:770-8. (Pubitemid 43975727)
7. Thorsen T, Makela M. (eds) Changing professional practice. Theory and practice of clinical guidelines implementation. Danish Institute for Health Services Research and Development, 1999. http://almenpraksis.ku.dk/medarbejdere/ thorkil/TT-Changing.pdf/. Accessed: 16 November 2012.
8. Lasserson DS, Glasziou PP, Perera R, Holman RR, Farmer AJ, et al. Optimal insulin regimens in type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analyses. Diabetologia; (2009) 52:1990-2000.
9. Jacquier I, Boutron I, Moher D, et al. The reporting of randomized clinical trials using a surgical intervention is in need of immediate improvement. A systematic review. Ann Surg 2006;244:677-83. (Pubitemid 44629939)
10. Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, et al. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ 2008;336:1472-4.
11. Davidson KW, Goldstein M, Kaplan RM, et al. Evidence-based behavioral medicine: what is it and how do we achieve it? Ann Behav Med 2003;26:161-71. (Pubitemid 37553472)
12. Gagnier JJ, Boon H, Rochon P, et al. Reporting randomized, controlled trials of herbal interventions: an elaborated CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:364-7. (Pubitemid 46768190)
13. Dean ME, Morag K, Coulter MK, et al. Reporting data on homeopathic treatments (RedHot): a supplement to CONSORT. Forsch Komplementarmed 2006;13:368-71. (Pubitemid 46025418)
14. http://www.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/uploads/glossary.pdf. (Accessed 30 Jul 2012).
15. Schilling LM, Kozak K, Lundahl K, et al. Inaccessible novel questionnaires in published medical research: hidden methods, hidden costs. Am J Epidemiol 2006;164:1141-4. (Pubitemid 44950381)
16. Pomeroy VM, Cooke E, Hamilton S, et al. Development of a schedule of current physiotherapy treatment used to improve movement control and functional use of the lower limb after stroke: a precursor to a clinical trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2005;19:350-9. (Pubitemid 41705663)
17. Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer review in health sciences. London: BMJ Books, 1999.
18. Altman DG. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 1994;308:283-4.
19. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, et al. Effects of peer review: a systematic review. JAMA 2002;287:2784-6.
20. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, et al. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med 2008;101:507-14.
21. Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Altman DG, et al. Taking healthcare interventions from trial to practice. BMJ 2010;341:c3852.
22. Phelan M, Blenkinsopp A, Foster NE, et al. Pharmacists-led medication review for knee pain in older adults: content, process and outcomes. Int J Pharmacy Pract 2008;16:347-55.