Assessing the Quality of Randomised Controlled Trials

Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context: Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 87-108

  Jüni, Peter ^a   Altman, Douglas G ^b   Egger, Matthias ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Outcome assessment; Quality scales; Randomised controlled trials; Systematic reviews; Treatment allocation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84948734235     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9780470693926.ch5     Document Type: Chapter

References (75)

1. Clarke MJ, Oxman AD (eds). Cochrane Collaboration Handbook [updated September 1997]. In: The Cochrane Library. The Cochrane Collaboration. Oxford: Update Software; 1999, issue 4.
2. Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam consultation on meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:167-71.
3. Pogue J, Yusuf S. Overcoming the limitations of current meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 1998;351:47-52.
4. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 1998;280:278-80.
5. Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé' KA. Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:255-65.
6. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995;16:62-73.
7. Moher D, Jadad AR, Tugwell P. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. Current issues and future directions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996;12:195-208.
8. Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999;282:1054-60.
9. Nurmohamed MT, Rosendaal FR, Buller HR, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus standard heparin in general and orthopaedic surgery: a meta-analysis. Lancet 1992;340:152-6.
10. Ioannidis JP, Lau J. Can quality of clinical trials and meta-analyses be quantified? Lancet 1998;352:590-1.
11. Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Kessels AG, Boers M, Knipschild PG. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:1235-41.
12. Berlin JA, Rennie D. Measuring the quality of trials: the quality of quality scales. JAMA 1999; 282:1083-5.
13. Campbell DT. Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychol Bull 1957;54:297-312.
14. Campbell DT, Stanley JC. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In: Gage NL, ed. Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963:171-246.
15. Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW, Wagner EH. Clinical epidemiology - the essentials. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1982.
16. Murphy EA. The logic of medicine. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976.
17. Chalmers I. Evaluating the effects of care during pregnancy and childbirth. In: Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJ, eds. Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989:3-38.
18. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall, 1991.
19. Altman DG, Bland JM. Treatment allocation in controlled trials: why randomise? BMJ 1999;318:1209.
20. Altman DG. Randomisation. Essential for reducing bias. BMJ 1991;302:1481-2.
21. Schulz KF. Randomised trials, human nature, and reporting guidelines. Lancet 1996;348:596-8.
22. Keirse MJ. Amniotomy or oxytocin for induction of labor. Re-analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1988;67:731-5.
23. Schulz KF. Subverting randomization in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;274:1456-8.
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. Pocock SJ. Clinical trials. A practical approach. Chichester: Wiley, 1983.
26. Meinert CL. Clinical trials dictionary. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Clinical Trials, 1996.
27. Sackett DL, Gent M. Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1979;301:1410-12.
28. Coronary Drug Project Research Group. Influence of adherence to treatment and response of cholesterol on mortality in the CDP. N Engl J Med 1980;303:1038-41.
29. May GS, Demets DL, Friedman LM, Furberg C, Passamani E. The randomized clinical trial: bias in analysis. Circulation 1981;64:669-73.
30. Lewis JA, Machin D. Intention to treat - who should use ITT? Br J Cancer 1993;68:647-50.
31. Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ 1999;319:670-4.
32. Peduzzi P, Wittes J, Detre K, Holford T. Analysis as-randomized and the problem of nonadherence: an example from the veterans affairs randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery. Stat Med 1993;12:1185-95.
33. Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1983;309:1358-61.
34. Colditz GA, Miller JN, Mosteller F. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy, I: medical. Stat Med 1989;8:441-54.
35. Miller JN, Colditz GA, Mosteller F. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. II: Surgical. Stat Med 1989;8:455-66.
36. Emerson JD, Burdick E, Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. An empirical study of the possible relation of treatment differences to quality scores in controlled randomized clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1990;11:339-52.
37. Ottenbacher K. Impact of random assignment on study outcome: an empirical examination. Control Clin Trials 1992;13:50-61.
38. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman D. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408-12.
39. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998;352:609-13.
40. Collins R, Peto R, MacMahon S, et al. Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease. Part 2, short term reduction in blood pressure: overview of randomised drug trials in their epidemiological context. Lancet 1990;335:827-38.
41. Gueyffier F, Bulpitt C, Boissel JP, et al. Antihypertensive drugs in very old people: a subgroup meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 1999;353:793-6.
42. Fibrinolytic Therapy Trialists' (FTT) Collaborative Group. Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: collaborative overview of early mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1000 patients. Lancet 1994;343:311-22.
43. Thompson SG. Controversies in meta-analysis: the case of the trials of serum cholesterol reduction. Stat Meth Med Res 1993;2:173-92.
44. Altman DG, Bland JM. Generalisation and extrapolation. BMJ 1998;317:409-10.
45. Mosteller F, Gilbert JP, McPeek B. Reporting standards and research strategies for controlled trials - agenda for the editor. Control Clin Trials 1980;1:37-58.
46. DerSimonian R, Charette LJ, McPeek B, Mosteller F. Reporting on methods in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1982;306:1332-7.
47. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, Altman D. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA 1994;272:125-8.
48. Schulz KF, Grimes DA, Altman DG, Hayes RJ. Blinding and exclusions after allocation in randomised controlled trials: survey of published parallel group trials in obstetrics and gynaecology. BMJ 1996;312:742-4.
49. Hotopf M, Lewis G, Normand C. Putting trials on trial - the costs and consequences of small trials in depression: a systematic review of methodology. J Epidemiol Community Health 1997;51:354-8.
50. Liberati A, Himel HN, Chalmers TC. A quality assessment of randomized control trials of primary treatment of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1986;4:942-51.
51. Feinstein AR. Meta-analysis: Statistical alchemy for the 21st century. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:71-9.
52. Begg CB, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996;276:637-9.
53. Kasiske BL, Ma JZ, Kalil RS, Louis TA. Effects of antihypertensive therapy on serum lipids. Ann Intern Med 1995;122:133-41.
54. Wyatt KM, Dimmock PW, Jones PW, O'Brien PM. Efficacy of vitamin B-6 in the treatment of premenstrual syndrome: systematic review. BMJ 1999;318:1375-81.
55. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carrol D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1-12.
56. Greenland S. Quality scores are useless and potentially misleading. Am J Epidemiol 1994;140:300-2.
57. Chalmers TC, Smith H, Blackburn B, et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials 1981;2:31-49.
58. Chalmers I, Hetherington J, Elbourne D, Keirse MJ, Enkin M. Materials and methods used in synthesizing evidence to evaluate the effects of care during pregnancy and childbirth. In: Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJ, eds. Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989:39-65.
59. Prendiville W, Elbourne D, Chalmers I. The effects of routine oxytocic administration in the management of the third stage of labour: an overview of the evidence from controlled trials. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1988;95:3-16.
60. Moher D, Fortin P, Jadad AR, et al. Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Lancet 1996;347:363-6.
61. Egger M, Zellweger-Zähner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 1997;350:326-9.
62. Rüther A, Galandi D, Antes G. Medizinische Entscheidungsfindung: Systematische Erfassung von klinischen Studien in medizinischen Fachzeitschriften. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Innere Medizin, 103. Kongreß für innere Medizin, Wiesbaden. 1997.
63. Altman DG, Matthews JNS. Interaction 1: Heterogeneity of effects. BMJ 1996;313:486.
64. Matthews JN, Altman DG. Interaction 2: compare effect sizes, not p values. BMJ 1996;313:808.
65. Matthews JN, Altman DG. Interaction 3: how to examine heterogeneity. BMJ 1996;313:862.
66. Thompson SG, Sharp S. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med 1999;18:2693-708.
67. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet 1998;351:123-7.
68. Lensing AW, Hirsh J. 125I-fibrinogen leg scanning: reassessment of its role for the diagnosis of venous thrombosis in post-operative patients. Thromb Haemost 1993;69:2-7.
69. Moher D, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Tugwell P, Moher M, Jones A. Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses. Health Technol Assess 1999;3(12).
70. Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Boston: Academic Press, 1985.
71. Linde K, Scholz M, Ramirez G, Clausius N, Melchart D, Jonas WB. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:631-6.
72. Tritchler D. Modelling study quality in meta-analysis. Stat Med 1999;18:2135-45.
73. Sanders C, Egger M, Donovan J, Tallon D, Frankel S. Reporting on quality of life in randomised controlled trials: bibliographic study. BMJ 1998;317:1191-4.
74. Schneider W, Knahr K. Scoring in forefoot surgery: a statistical evaluation of single variables and rating systems. Acta Orthop Scand 1998;69:498-504.
75. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 1999;282:1061-6.