BMJ : British medical journal
-
Multicenter Study
Impact of supervision of methadone consumption on deaths related to methadone overdose (1993-2008): analyses using OD4 index in England and Scotland.
To evaluate the impact of introduction of supervision of methadone dosing on deaths related to overdose of methadone in Scotland and England between 1993 and 2008 while controlling for increased prescribing of methadone. ⋯ Introduction of supervised methadone dosing was followed by substantial declines in deaths related to overdose of methadone in both Scotland and England. OD4-methadone index analyses, controlled for substantial increases in methadone prescribing in both countries, identified at least a fourfold reduction in deaths due to methadone related overdose per defined daily dose (OD4-methadone) over this period.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial.
To determine whether a decision aid designed for adults with low education and literacy can support informed choice and involvement in decisions about screening for bowel cancer. ⋯ Tailored decision support information can be effective in supporting informed choices and greater involvement in decisions about faecal occult blood testing among adults with low levels of education, without increasing anxiety or worry about developing bowel cancer. Using a decision aid to make an informed choice may, however, lead to lower uptake of screening. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00765869 and Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry 12608000011381.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial.
To see whether telling peer reviewers that their signed reviews of original research papers might be posted on the BMJ's website would affect the quality of their reviews. ⋯ Telling peer reviewers that their signed reviews might be available in the public domain on the BMJ's website had no important effect on review quality. Although the possibility of posting reviews online was associated with a high refusal rate among potential peer reviewers and an increase in the amount of time taken to write a review, we believe that the ethical arguments in favour of open peer review more than outweigh these disadvantages.
-
To examine the prevalence of outcome reporting bias-the selection for publication of a subset of the original recorded outcome variables on the basis of the results-and its impact on Cochrane reviews. ⋯ Outcome reporting bias is an under-recognised problem that affects the conclusions in a substantial proportion of Cochrane reviews. Individuals conducting systematic reviews need to address explicitly the issue of missing outcome data for their review to be considered a reliable source of evidence. Extra care is required during data extraction, reviewers should identify when a trial reports that an outcome was measured but no results were reported or events observed, and contact with trialists should be encouraged.
-
To examine the reporting characteristics and methodological details of randomised trials indexed in PubMed in 2000 and 2006 and assess whether the quality of reporting has improved after publication of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement in 2001. ⋯ Reporting of several important aspects of trial methods improved between 2000 and 2006; however, the quality of reporting remains well below an acceptable level. Without complete and transparent reporting of how a trial was designed and conducted, it is difficult for readers to assess its conduct and validity.