Statistical and methodological considerations for reporting RCTs in medical literature

Korean Journal of Anesthesiology

Volumn 68, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 106-115

  Lee, Sangseok ^a   Kang, Hyun ^b  

^a Inje University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^b Chung Ang University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Checklist; Methods; Randomized controlled trial; Statistics

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; DEMOGRAPHY; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROBABILITY SAMPLE; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); READING; RELIABILITY; SAMPLE SIZE; SOCIOECONOMICS; STATISTICS; STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); VALIDITY;

EID: 84940190549     PISSN: 20056419     EISSN: 20057563     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4097/kjae.2015.68.2.106     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. Users' guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1993; 270: 2598-601.
2. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2008.
3. Stephenson JM, Babiker A. Overview of study design in clinical epidemiology. Sex Transm Infect 2000; 76: 244-7.
4. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273: 408-12.
5. Marshall M, Lockwood A, Bradley C, Adams C, Joy C, Fenton M. Unpublished rating scales: a major source of bias in randomised controlled trials of treatments for schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry 2000; 176: 249-52.
6. Dwan K, Altman DG, Clarke M, Gamble C, Higgins JP, Sterne JA, et al. Evidence for the selective reporting of analyses and discrepancies in clinical trials: a systematic review of cohort studies of clinical trials. PLoS Med 2014; 11: e1001666.
7. Rahimi K, Malhotra A, Banning AP, Jenkinson C. Outcome selection and role of patient reported outcomes in contemporary cardiovascular trials: systematic review. BMJ 2010; 341: c5707.
8. Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review. PloS One 2013; 8: e66844.
9. Chan AW, Altman DG. Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ 2005; 330: 753.
10. Kang H. Appropriate design of research and statistical analyses: observational versus experimental studies. Korean J Anesthesiol 2013; 65: 105-7.
11. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7: iii-x, 1-173.
12. Campbell DT. Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychol Bull 1957; 54: 297-312.
13. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001; 323: 42-6.
14. Ahn WS. Sample size for anesthetic study. Korean J Anesthesiol 2007; 52: 740.
15. Beck RW. Sample size for a clinical trial: why do some trials need only 100 patients and others 1000 patients or more? Ophthalmology 2006; 113: 721-2.
16. Lee YS, Ko H. Post-hoc Survey for Power of 119 Negative Results in Korean Journal of Anesthesiology. Korean J Anesthesiol 1999; 36: 286-92.
17. Lewis JA. Statistical principles for clinical trials (ICH E9): an introductory note on an international guideline. Stat Med 1999; 18: 1903-42.
18. Altman DG. Randomisation. BMJ 1991; 302: 1481-2.
19. 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: 1489-91.
20. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, Altman DG. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA 1994; 272: 125-8.
21. Chalmers TC, Levin H, Sacks HS, Reitman D, Berrier J, Nagalingam R. Meta-analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline. I: Control of bias and comparison with large co-operative trials. Stat Med 1987; 6: 315-28.
22. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Juni P, Altman DG, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2008; 336: 601-5.
23. Gotzsche PC. Blinding during data analysis and writing of manuscripts. Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 285-90.
24. Noseworthy JH, Ebers GC, Vandervoort MK, Farquhar RE, Yetisir E, Roberts R. The impact of blinding on the results of a randomized, placebo-controlled multiple sclerosis clinical trial. Neurology 1994; 44: 16-20.
25. A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. The Standards of Reporting Trials Group. JAMA 1994; 272: 1926-31.
26. Fergusson D, Glass KC, Waring D, Shapiro S. Turning a blind eye: the success of blinding reported in a random sample of randomised, placebo controlled trials. BMJ 2004; 328: 432.
27. Montori VM, Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Manns BJ, Ghali WA, Guyatt GH. In the dark: the reporting of blinding status in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 787-90.
28. Cheng K, Smyth RL, Motley J, O'Hea U, Ashby D. Randomized controlled trials in cystic fibrosis (1966-1997) categorized by time, design, and intervention. Pediatr Pulmonol 2000; 29: 1-7.
29. Gotzsche PC. Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 31-56.
30. Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004; 291: 2457-65.
31. Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ 2008; 336: 1472-4.
32. Macura A, Abraha I, Kirkham J, Gensini GF, Moja L, Iorio A. Selective outcome reporting: telling and detecting true lies. The state of the science. Intern Emerg Med 2010; 5: 151-5.
33. Pitrou I, Boutron I, Ahmad N, Ravaud P. Reporting of safety results in published reports of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169: 1756-61.
34. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C. Value of flow diagrams in reports of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2001; 285: 1996-9.
35. Sackett DL, Gent M. Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1979; 301: 1410-2.
36. May GS, DeMets DL, Friedman LM, Furberg C, Passamani E. The randomized clinical trial: bias in analysis. Circulation 1981; 64: 669-73.
37. Kang H. The prevention and handling of the missing data. Korean J Anesthesiol 2013; 64: 402-6.
38. Fields WS, Maslenikov V, Meyer JS, Hass WK, Remington RD, Macdonald M. Joint study of extracranial arterial occlusion. V. Progress report of prognosis following surgery or nonsurgical treatment for transient cerebral ischemic attacks and cervical carotid artery lesions. JAMA 1970; 211: 1993-2003.
39. Meinert CL. Beyond CONSORT: need for improved reporting standards for clinical trials. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. JAMA 1998; 279: 1487-9.
40. 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: 1987-91.