Secular changes in the quality of published randomized clinical trials in rheumatology. Evolution of the randomized controlled trial in oncology over three decades. The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: a systematic review. Implementing a guideline for the treatment of type 2 diabetics: results of a cluster-randomized controlled trial (C-RCT). Publication bias and meta-analyses: a practical example. The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of traditional Chinese medicine: a survey of 13 randomly selected journals from mainland China. CONSORT adoption and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: a systematic analysis in two dermatology journals. The quality of randomized controlled trials in major anesthesiology journals. Intensified hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy limits the additional benefit of simultaneous chemotherapy--results of a multicentric randomized German trial in advanced head-and-neck cancer.
To assess the quality of published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in rheumatology and to determine whether there has been improvement in quality between 2 time periods, 1987-1988 and 1997-1998.
                Using MEDLINE and a hand search of selected rheumatology journals, we identified RCTs of adult rheumatic diseases published in English in 1987-1988 or 1997-1998. We examined trial quality with an expanded version of the Jadad scale, which assesses the adequacy of reported random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and analysis. All trials were read by 1 reviewer, with prior standardization using a random sample read by 2 reviewers. We also evaluated "high"- versus "low"-impact journals based on citation index.
                Two hundred forty RCTs (1987-1988 119 RCTs, 1997-1998 121 RCTs) were assessed. Results showed improvement in the quality of the trials, but the rates of reported random sequence generation, allocation concealment, power, and intent-to-treat analyses were persistently low. Low rates of reports of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and intent-to-treat analyses were present even in the high-impact journals.
                There has been improvement in the quality of reporting of RCTs in rheumatology between 1987-1988 and 1997-1998. However, methodologic problems such as lack of allocation concealment, inadequate random sequence generation, lack of reporting of power, and lack of intent-to-treat analyses remain common. Many of these problems are established sources of bias in RCTs and are easily rectifiable. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the gold standard for establishing new therapies in clinical oncology. Here we document changes with time in design, sponsorship, and outcomes of oncology RCTs.
                Reports of RCTs evaluating systemic therapy for breast, colorectal (CRC), and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) published 1975 to 2004 in six major journals were reviewed. Two authors abstracted data regarding trial design, results, and conclusions. Conclusions of authors were graded using a 7-point Likert scale. For each study the effect size for the primary end point was converted to a summary measure.
                A total of 321 eligible RCTs were included (48% breast, 24% CRC, 28% NSCLC). Over time, the number and size of RCTs increased considerably. For-profit/mixed sponsorship increased substantially during the study period (4% to 57%; P < .001). There was increasing use of time-to-event measures (39% to 78%) and decreasing use of response rate (54% to 14%) as primary end point (P < .001). Effect size remained stable over the study period. Authors have become more likely to strongly endorse the experimental arm (P = .017). A significant P value for the primary end point and industry sponsorship were each independently associated with endorsement of the experimental agent (odds ratio [OR] = 19.6, 95% CI, 8.9 to 43.1, and OR = 3.5, 95% CI, 1.6 to 7.5, respectively).
                RCTs in oncology have become larger and are more likely to be sponsored by industry. Authors of modern RCTs are more likely to strongly endorse novel therapies. For-profit sponsorship and statistically significant results are independently associated with endorsement of the experimental arm. In order to examine the reporting quality of urological RCTs, the initial objectives of this study were to evaluate the degree to which RCTs involving urological surgical techniques (as the intervention) published in the years 2000-2003 complied with the CONSORT statement, and to assess trends and patterns of compliance. Following our initial findings in urology, we extended the methodology to a number of other specialties to assess whether our findings in urology could be generalised to other surgical disciplines.
                The Royal Society of Medicine (RSM) Library was commissioned to search the Medline and Cochrane databases for RCTs in compliance with the study inclusion criteria below. Additional analyses of five other specialties (non-urological trials: cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, hepatic, orthopaedic and vascular) were also made. For the non-urological trials, 15 English language trials (from each specialty) were randomly picked from a blast search conducted by the RSM for the year 2003. The RCTs were given a score out of 22, reflecting how many of the 22 CONSORT items were complied with (with each item being given equal weighting), this score was termed the "CONSORT score".
                Urology trials: In total 122 RCT abstracts were identified which met the inclusion criteria for this study. From these, 32 were excluded as they were follow-up studies, involved a virtual procedure or were a cost analysis, leaving 90 RCTs published across 35 different journals which were analysed (68.2%, 90/122). The average score of 11.1 for urological trials indicates that RCTs in our sample do not comply with the CONSORT statement. No trials reported how they implemented their randomisation process. Only 46% of RCTs stated that they had permission from an ethics review board, 20% had declared their sources of funding, 14% stated whether there were any conflicts of interest and only 1.1% stated their trial registry number. For non-urological studies, an average CONSORT score of 11.2 was obtained.
                Clinical research teams conducting RCTs in urology and other surgical disciplines demonstrate poor compliance with the CONSORT statement. We would recommend that trials should be registered at their outset and that urological and other surgical journals to consider supporting the CONSORT statement and to have compliance 'hard-wired' into their submission, editorial and peer-review processes. Since it seems the best researchers are unable to produce an RCT results which enable surgical techniques to be critically assessed, there is a need for education about the CONSORT statement and its importance at all levels of surgical training. We believe that an open debate is needed on the possible role of other research designs, such as tracker studies. Whether this study actually raises the question of how appropriate RCTs are to surgical techniques, we leave to the reader. In Italy many diabetics still lack adequate care in general practice. We assessed the effectiveness of different strategies for the implementation of an evidence-based guideline for the management of non-complicated type 2 diabetes among General Practitioners (GPs) of Lazio region.
                Three-arm cluster-randomised controlled trial with GPs as units of randomisation (clusters). 252 GPs were randomised either to an active strategy (training module with administration of the guideline), or to a passive dissemination (administration of the guideline only), or to usual care (control). Data on prescriptions of tests and drugs were collected by existing information systems, whereas patients' data came from GPs' databases. Process outcomes were measured at the cluster level one year after the intervention. Primary outcomes concerned the measurement of glycosilated haemoglobin and the commissioning of micro- and macrovascular complications assessment tests. In order to assess the physicians' drug prescribing behaviour secondary outcomes were also calculated.
                GPs identified 6395 uncomplicated type 2 patients with a high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors. Data on GPs baseline performance show low proportions of glycosilated haemoglobin assessments. Results of the C-RCT analysis indicate that the active implementation strategy was ineffective relating to all primary outcomes (respectively, OR 1.06 [95% IC: 0.76-1.46]; OR 1.07 [95% IC: 0.80-1.43]; OR 1.4 [95% IC:0.91-2.16]. Similarly, passive dissemination of the guideline showed no effect.
                In our region compliance of GPs with guidelines was not enhanced by a structured learning programme. Implementation through organizational measures appears to be essential to induce behavioural changes.
                ISRCTN80116232. Publication bias is widely appreciated, but considerable time and effort are needed to locate and obtain data from unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs), those published in non-English language journals or those reported in the gray literature; for this publication, we will call this collection of trials the "gray+literature." However, excluding such trials from systematic reviews could introduce bias and give rise to misleading conclusions.
                We aimed to explore and quantify the impact of inclusion of gray+ literature on the results of all completed individual patient data (IPD) reviews coordinated by our group (13 meta-analyses). For each IPD review, results were calculated for RCTs fully published in English language journals and RCTs fully published in English language journals and the gray+literature.
                The IPD meta-analyses based only on RCTs that were fully published in English language journals tended to give more favorable results than those that included RCTs from the gray+literature. Although in most cases the addition of gray+data gave less encouraging results, moving the estimated treatment effect toward a null result, the direction of effect was not always predictable.
                We recommend that all systematic reviews should at least attempt to identify trials reported in the gray+literature and, where possible, obtain data from them. The number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is increasing. However, there have been few systematic assessments of the quality of reporting of these trials. Objective: This study was undertaken to evaluate the quality of reporting of RCTs in TCM journals published in mainland China from 1999 to 2004.
                Thirteen TCM journals were randomly selected by stratified sampling of the approximately 100 TCM journals published in mainland China. All issues of the selected journals published from 1999 to 2004 were hand-searched according to guidelines from the Cochrane Centre. All reviewers underwent training in the evaluation of RCTs at the Chinese Centre of Evidence-based Medicine. A comprehensive quality assessment of each RCT was completed using a modified version of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist (total of 30 items) and the Jadad scale. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.
                Seven thousand four hundred twenty-two RCTs were identified. The proportion of published RCTs relative to all types of published clinical trials increased significantly over the period studied, from 18.6% in 1999 to 35.9% in 2004 (P < 0.001). The mean (SD) Jadad score was 1.03 (0.61) overall. One RCT had a Jadad score of 5 points; 14 had a score of 4 points; and 102 had a score of 3 points. The mean (SD) Jadad score was 0.85 (0.53) in 1999 (746 RCTs) and 1.20 (0.62) in 2004 (1634 RCTs). Across all trials, 39.4% of the items on the modified CONSORT checklist were reported, which was equivalent to 11.82 (5.78) of the 30 items. Some important methodologic components of RCTs were incompletely reported, such as sample-size calculation (reported in 1.1% of RCTs), randomization sequence (7.9%), allocation concealment (0.3 %), implementation of the random-allocation sequence (0%), and analysis of intention to treat (0%).
                The findings of this study indicate that the quality of reporting of RCTs of TCM has improved, but remains poor. CONSORT (Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials) guidelines were constructed to ensure optimal reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
                To determine the effect of the adoption of CONSORT on the reporting quality of RCTs, we performed a systematic evaluation of RCTs published in two dermatology journals pre- and post-CONSORT adoption.
                The journals selected for the study were the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology and the British Journal of Dermatology. We selected RCTs published in 1997 and 2006 using both Medline and hand searching. The following critical CONSORT criteria were recorded: sample size, type of disease studied, type of control, single-centre or multicentre study, type of funding, blinding, methods and type of randomization, definition of a primary endpoint, justification for sample size selection and power calculation, population for analysis, and adequacy of group comparison. A multivariable analysis was conducted to determine factors associated with optimal reporting quality.
                In total, 98 studies were included. Improvement in reporting quality was evident for the specification of the randomization method (20% in 1997 vs. 45% in 2006, P < 0.01) and for the justification of sample size (22% in 1997 vs. 43% in 2006, P = 0.027). The percentage of studies with optimal reporting quality increased from 11% in 1997 to 28% in 2006 (P = 0.03). Factors significantly associated with a good methodological quality were pharmaceutical industry funding and publication in 2006 vs. 1997.
                There is a need to improve the reporting quality of RCTs published in dermatology journals. Increased attention has been directed at the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and how they are being reported. We examined leading anesthesiology journals to identify if there were specific areas for improvement in the design and analysis of published clinical studies. All RCTs that appeared between January 2000 and December 2000 in leading anesthesiology journals (Anesthesiology,Anesthesia & Analgesia,Anaesthesia, and Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia) were retrieved by a MEDLINE search. We used a previously validated assessment tool, including 14 items associated with study quality, to determine a quality score for each article. The overall mean weighted quality score was 44% +/- 16%. Overall average scores were relatively high for appropriate controls (77% +/- 7%) and discussions of side effects (67% +/- 6%). Scores were very low for randomization blinding (5% +/- 2%), blinding observers to results (1% +/- 1%), and post-beta estimates (16% +/- 13%). Important pretreatment clinical predictors were absent in 32% of all studies. Significant improvement in the reporting and conduct of RCTs is required and should focus on randomization methodology, the blinding of investigators, and sample size estimates. Repeat assessments of the literature may improve the adoption of guidelines for the improvement of the quality of randomized controlled trials. To demonstrate the efficacy of radiochemotherapy (RCT) as the first choice of treatment for advanced unresectable head-and-neck cancer. To prove an expected benefit of simultaneously given chemotherapy, a two-arm randomized study with hyperfractionated accelerated radiochemotherapy (HF-ACC-RCT) vs. hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (HF-ACC-RT) was initiated. The primary endpoint was 1-year survival with local control (SLC).
                Patients with Stage III and IV (UICC) unresectable oro- and hypopharyngeal carcinomas were randomized for HF-ACC-RCT with 2 cycles of 5-FU (600 mg/m(2)/day)/carboplatinum (70 mg/m(2)) on days 1--5 and 29--33 (arm A) or HF-ACC-RT alone (arm B). In both arms, there was a second randomization for testing the effect of prophylactically given G-CSF (263 microg, days 15--19) on mucosal toxicity. Total RT dose in both arms was 69.9 Gy in 38 days, with a concomitant boost regimen (weeks 1--3: 1.8 Gy/day, weeks 4 and 5: b.i.d. RT with 1.8 Gy/1.5 Gy). Between July 1995 and May 1999, 263 patients were randomized (median age 56 years; 96% Stage IV tumors, 4% Stage III tumors).
                This analysis is based on 240 patients: 113 patients with RCT and 127 patients with RT, qualified for protocol and starting treatment. There were 178 oropharyngeal and 62 hypopharyngeal carcinomas. Treatment was tolerable in both arms, with a higher mucosal toxicity after RCT. Restaging showed comparable nonsignificant different CR + PR rates of 92.4% after RCT and 87.9% after RT (p = 0.29). After a median observed time of 22.3 months, l- and 2-year local-regional control (LRC) rates were 69% and 51% after RCT and 58% and 45% after RT (p = 0.14). There was a significantly better 1-year SLC after RCT (58%) compared with RT (44%, p = 0.05). Patients with oropharyngeal carcinomas showed significantly better SLC after RCT (60%) vs. RT (40%, p = 0.01); the smaller group of hypopharyngeal carcinomas had no statistical benefit of RCT (p = 0.84). For both tumor locations, prophylactically given G-CSF was a poor prognostic factor (Cox regression), and resulted in reduced LRC (log-rank test: +/- G-CSF, p = 0.0072).
                With accelerated radiotherapy, the efficiency of simultaneously given chemotherapy may be not as high as expected when compared to standard fractionated RT. Oropharyngeal carcinomas showed better LRC after HF-ACC-RCT vs. HF-ACC-RT; hypopharyngeal carcinomas did not. Prophylactic G-CSF resulted in an unexpected reduced local control and should be given in radiotherapy regimen only with strong hematologic indication.
There is insufficient evidence from RCTs to support the decision as to whether to initiate sulphonylurea monotherapy. Data on patient-important outcomes are lacking. Therefore, large-scale and long-term randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias, focusing on patient-important outcomes are required.