The characteristics and quality of randomized controlled trials in neuropathic pain: A descriptive study based on a systematic review

Clinical Journal of Pain

Volumn 29, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 591-599

  Sauzet, Odile ^a   Williams, John E ^b   Ross, Joy ^b   Branford, Ruth ^b,c   Farquhar Smith, Paul ^b   Griffith, Gethin L ^d   Fox Rushby, Julia A ^d   Peacock, Janet L ^e  

^a BIELEFELD UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b Royal Marsden Hospital   (United Kingdom)

^c St Joseph's Hospice ^*  (United Kingdom)

^d BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^e KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

neuropathic pain; quality; RCT; systematic review

Indexed keywords

ANTICONVULSIVE AGENT; ANTIDEPRESSANT AGENT; OPIATE;

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH; HUMAN; INTENTION TO TREAT ANALYSIS; NEUROPATHIC PAIN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PARALLEL DESIGN; PATIENT CODING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RATING SCALE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HUMANS; NEURALGIA; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PREVALENCE; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84879885505     PISSN: 07498047     EISSN: 15365409     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e31826d6251     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Harbour R, Miller J. A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. BMJ. 2001;323:334-336. (Pubitemid 32744465)
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, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869.
4. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA. 2001;285:1987-1991. (Pubitemid 32366951)
5. Hopewell S, Dutton S, Yu L-M, et al. The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. BMJ. 2010;340:c723.
6. Cornelius VR, Sauzet O, Williams JE, et al. Adverse event reporting in randomised controlled trials of neuropathic pain: Considerations for future practice. Pain. 2012. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.pain.2012.08.012.
7. 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. (Pubitemid 26120810)
8. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JPT. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ. 2005;331:897-900. (Pubitemid 41502718)
9. Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, et al. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ. 2009;338:b1147.
10. Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Allen RR, et al. Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2003;106:337-345. (Pubitemid 37505881)
11. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336:601-605. (Pubitemid 351439518)
12. Nuesch E, Trelle S, Reichenbach S, et al. The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2009;339: b3244.
13. Rowbotham MC. The impact of selective publication on clinical research in pain. Pain. 2008;104-113.
14. McGauran N, Wieseler B, Kreis J, et al. Reporting bias in medical reseach-a narrative review. Trials. 2010;11-37.
15. Assmann SF, Pocock SJ, Enos LE, et al. Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet. 2000;355:1064-1069. (Pubitemid 30162810)