Are Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials Improving over Time? A Systematic Review of 284 Articles Published in High-Impact General and Specialized Medical Journals

Objective.Well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCT) mitigate bias and confounding, but previous evaluations of rheumatology trials found high rates of methodological flaws. Outside of rheumatoid arthritis, no studies in the modern era have assessed the quality of rheumatology RCT over time or regarding industry funding.Methods.We identified all RCT published in 3 high-impact rheumatology journals from 1998, 2008, and 2018. Quality metrics derived from a modified Jadad scale were analyzed by year of publication and by funding source.Results.Ninety-six publications met inclusion criteria; 82 of these described the primary analysis of an RCT. Over time (1998–2008–2018), trials were less likely to adequately report dropouts and withdrawals (100% vs 82% vs 60%; p < 0.01) or include an active comparator (44% vs 12% vs 13%; p = 0.01). Later trials were more likely to evaluate biologic therapy (11% vs 38% vs 83%; p < 0.01) and report adequate randomization procedures (39% vs 29% vs 60%; p = 0.04). Seventy-nine percent of trials received industry funding. Industry-funded trials were more likely to report double-blinding (86% vs 53%; p < 0.01), patient-reported outcome measures (77% vs 41%; p < 0.01), and intention-to-treat analyses (86% vs 65%; p = 0.04).Conclusion.Industry-funded trials comprise the majority of RCT published in high-impact rheumatology journals and more frequently report metrics associated with RCT quality. RCT assessing active comparators and nonbiologic therapies have become less common in high-impact rheumatology journals.

Download Full-text

Has the incidence of deep vein thrombosis in patients undergoing total hip/knee arthroplasty changed over time? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Thrombosis Research ◽

10.1016/j.thromres.2008.05.005 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 123 (1) ◽

pp. 24-34 ◽

Cited By ~ 48

Author(s):

Katharine He Xing ◽

Gareth Morrison ◽

Wendy Lim ◽

James Douketis ◽

Adefowope Odueyungbo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Knee Arthroplasty ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Total Hip ◽

Vein Thrombosis ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Deep Vein ◽

Over Time

Download Full-text

Eligibility Criteria of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High-Impact General Medical Journals

JAMA ◽

10.1001/jama.297.11.1233 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 297 (11) ◽

pp. 1233 ◽

Cited By ~ 540

Author(s):

Harriette G. C. Van Spall ◽

Andrew Toren ◽

Alex Kiss ◽

Robert A. Fowler

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

High Impact ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Medical Journals ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

General Medical Journals

Download Full-text

Publication Trends of Pediatric and Adult Randomized Controlled Trials in General Medical Journals, 2005–2018: A Citation Analysis

Children ◽

10.3390/children7120293 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (12) ◽

pp. 293

Author(s):

Michael L. Groff ◽

Martin Offringa ◽

Abby Emdin ◽

Quenby Mahood ◽

Patricia C. Parkin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Pediatric Patients ◽

Web Of Science ◽

High Impact ◽

Impact Factors ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Publication Trends ◽

Medical Journals ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

General Medical Journals

Policy has been developed to promote the conduct of high-quality pediatric randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Whether these strategies have influenced publication trends in high-impact journals is unknown. We aim to evaluate characteristics, citation patterns, and publication trends of pediatric RCTs published in general medical journals (GMJs) compared with adult RCTs over a 13-year period. Studies were identified using Medline, and impact metrics were collected from Web of Science and Scopus. All RCTs published from 2005–2018 in 7 GMJs with the highest impact factors were identified for analysis. A random sample of matched pediatric and adult RCTs were assessed for publication characteristics, academic and non-academic citation. Citations were counted from publication until June 2019. Among 4146 RCTs, 2794 (67.3%) enrolled adults, 591 (14.2%) enrolled children, and 761 RCTs (18.3%) enrolled adult and pediatric patients. Adult RCTs published in GMJs grew by 5.1 publications per year (95% CI: 3.3–6.9), while the number of pediatric RCTs did not show significant change (−0.4 RCTs/year, 95% CI: −1.4–0.6). Adult RCTs were cited more than pediatric RCTs (median(IQR): 29.9 (68.5–462.8) citations/year vs. 13.2 (6.8–24.9) citations/year; p < 0.001); however, social media attention was similar (median(IQR) Altmetric Attention Score: 37 (13.75–133.8) vs. 26 (6.2–107.5); p = 0.25). Despite policies which may facilitate conduct of pediatric RCTs, the publishing gap in high-impact GMJs is widening.

Download Full-text