Journal of clinical epidemiology
-
Review Comparative Study
Oncology trial abstracts showed suboptimal improvement in reporting: a comparative before-and-after evaluation using CONSORT for Abstract guidelines.
The aims of this study were to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts published in the field of oncology and identify characteristics associated with better reporting quality. ⋯ The reporting quality of RCT abstracts in oncology showed suboptimal improvement over time. Thus, stricter adherence to the CONSORT for Abstract guidelines is needed to improve the reporting quality of RCT abstracts published in oncology.
-
A P-value <0.05 is one metric used to evaluate the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT). We wondered how often statistically significant results in RCTs may be lost with small changes in the numbers of outcomes. ⋯ The statistically significant results of many RCTs hinge on small numbers of events. The Fragility Index complements the P-value and helps identify less robust results.
-
Nonrandomized studies (NRSs) are considered to provide less reliable evidence for intervention effects. However, these are included in Cochrane reviews, despite discouragement. There has been no evaluation of when and how these designs are used. Therefore, we conducted an overview of current practice. ⋯ Most Cochrane reviews do not justify including NRS. When they do, most are not in line with Cochrane recommendations. Risk of bias assessment varies across reviews and needs improvement.
-
To investigate how consensus is operationalized in Delphi studies and to explore the role of consensus in determining the results of these studies. ⋯ Although consensus generally is felt to be of primary importance to the Delphi process, definitions of consensus vary widely and are poorly reported. Improved criteria for reporting of methods of Delphi studies are required.
-
Although the use of an adjudication committee (AC) for outcomes is recommended in randomized controlled trials, there are limited data on the process of adjudication. We therefore aimed to assess whether the reporting of the adjudication process in venous thromboembolism (VTE) trials meets existing quality standards and which characteristics of trials influence the use of an AC. ⋯ Recommended processes of adjudication are underreported and lack standardization in VTE-related clinical trials. The use of an AC varies substantially by trial characteristics.