The use of systematic reviews to justify orthopaedic trauma randomized controlled trials: A cross-sectional analysis

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of studies listed in The National Library of Medicine registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and preprints in medRxiv for COVID-19 has grown rapidly. In this study, we clarified the publication trends of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) regarding COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study by investigating the number of SRs and RCTs on topics related to COVID-19 practice published in PubMed and medRxiv between January 1 and June 30, 2020. We calculated the ratio of the number of RCTs to that of SRs for this study period, as in a previous study. Results: The SR/RCT ratio in PubMed increased from 9.0 in March to 102 in June. In medRxiv, the SR/RCT ratio rose from 7.7 in March to 16.5 in June Discussion: The SR/RCT ratio increased and was much higher than that of 0.871 in 2017 found in a previous review of all medical research. During the study period, the trend in the COVID-19 publications comprised a more rapid increase in the number of SRs than RCTs

Download Full-text

Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s Study-Based Register of Randomized Controlled Trials: Development and Content Analysis

Schizophrenia Bulletin Open ◽

10.1093/schizbullopen/sgaa061 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 1 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Farhad Shokraneh ◽

Clive E Adams

Keyword(s):

Content Analysis ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Research Policy ◽

Cochrane Review ◽

Gis Mapping ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Policy And Practice ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Review Team

Abstract Background Study-based registers facilitate systematic reviews through shortening the process for review team and reducing considerable waste during the review process. Such a register also provides new insights about trends of trials in a sub-specialty. This paper reports development and content analysis of Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s Study-Based Register. Methods The randomized controlled trials were collected through systematic searches of major information sources. Data points were extracted, curated and classified in the register. We report trends using regression analyses in Microsoft Excel and we used GIS mapping (GunnMap 2) to visualize the geographical distribution of the origin of schizophrenia trials. Results Although only 17% of trials were registered, the number of reports form registered trials is steadily increasing and registered trials produce more reports. Clinical trial registers are main source of trial reports followed by sub-specialty journals. Schizophrenia trials have been published in 23 languages from 90 countries while 105 nations do not have any reported schizophrenia trials. Only 9.7% of trials were included in at least one Cochrane review. Pharmacotherapy is the main target of trials while trials targeting psychotherapy are increasing in a continuous rate. The number of people randomized in trials is on average 114 with 60 being the most frequent sample size. Conclusions Curated datasets within the register uncover new patterns in data that have implications for research, policy, and practice for testing new interventions in trials or systematic reviews.

Download Full-text

Tools to Assess the External Validity of Randomized Controlled Trials in Systematic Reviews: a Systematic Review of Measurement Properties

10.21203/rs.3.rs-830181/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Andres Jung ◽

Julia Balzer ◽

Tobias Braun ◽

Kerstin Luedtke

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

External Validity ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Quality Of Evidence ◽

Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background: Internal and external validity are the most relevant components when critically appraising randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for systematic reviews. However, there is no gold standard to assess external validity. This might be related to the heterogeneity of terminology as well as to unclear evidence of the measurement properties of available tools. The aim of this review was to identify tools to assess the external validity of RCTs in systematic reviews and to evaluate the quality of evidence regarding their measurement properties.Methods: A two-phase systematic literature search was performed in four databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO via OVID, and CINAHL via EBSCO. First, tools to assess the external validity of RCTs were identified. Second, studies aiming to investigate the measurement properties of these tools were selected. The measurement properties of each included tool were appraised using an adapted version of the COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines.Results: 34 publications reporting on the development or validation of 26 included tools were included. For 62% of the included tools, there was no evidence of any measurement property. For the remaining tools, reliability was assessed most frequently. Reliability was judged as “sufficient” for three tools (very low quality of evidence). Content validity was rated as “sufficient” for one tool (moderate quality of evidence).Conclusions: Based on these results, no available tool can be fully recommended to assess the external validity of RCTs in systematic reviews. Several steps are required to overcome the identified difficulties to either adapt and validate available tools or to develop a new one. There is a need for more research for this purpose.Trial registration: Prospective registration at Open Science Framework (OSF): https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PTG4D

Download Full-text