Assessing the Validity of Published Randomized Controlled Trials in Podiatric Medical Journals

2003 ◽  
Vol 93 (5) ◽  
pp. 392-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Turlik ◽  
Donald Kushner ◽  
Dina Stock
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Randomized Controlled

The purposes of this study were to develop an instrument to assess the validity of randomized controlled trials and to report on the differences in the validity of randomized controlled trials between two podiatric medical journals and a mainstream medical journal. The study demonstrated that after adequate training, there can be agreement among reviewers evaluating the quality of published randomized controlled trials using an established instrument and guidelines. The results of the study indicate that randomized controlled trials published in podiatric medical journals are less credible than those published in a mainstream medical journal. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 93(5): 392-398, 2003)

scholarly journals The assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials published in Indian medical journals

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 79
Author(s):  
Melvin George ◽  
Luxitaa Goenka ◽  
Suramya Rajendran ◽  
Kalaiselvi Arumugam ◽  
Jamuna Rani
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Indian Medical

Standards for reporting randomized controlled trials in neurosurgery

2011 ◽  
Vol 114 (2) ◽  
pp. 280-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin N. Kiehna ◽  
Robert M. Starke ◽  
Nader Pouratian ◽  
Aaron S. Dumont
Keyword(s):  
New England ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Jadad Score ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Neurosurgical Patients

Object The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) criteria were published in 1996 to standardize the reporting and improve the quality of clinical trials. Despite having been endorsed by major medical journals and shown to improve the quality of reported trials, neurosurgical journals have yet to formally adopt these reporting criteria. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality and reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in neurosurgery and the factors that may affect the quality of reported trials. Methods The authors evaluated all neurosurgical RCTs published in 2006 and 2007 in the principal neurosurgical journals (Journal of Neurosurgery; Neurosurgery; Surgical Neurology; Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry; and Acta Neurochirurgica) and in 3 leading general medical journals (Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine). Randomized controlled trials that addressed operative decision making or the treatment of neurosurgical patients were included in this analysis. The RCT quality was evaluated using the Jadad score and the CONSORT checklist. Results In 2006 and 2007, 27 RCTs relevant to intracranial neurosurgery were reported. Of these trials, only 59% had a Jadad score ≥ 3. The 3 major medical journals all endorsed the CONSORT guidelines, while none of the neurosurgical journals have adopted these guidelines. Randomized controlled trials published in the 3 major medical journals had a significantly higher mean CONSORT score (mean 41, range 39–44) compared with those published in neurosurgical journals (mean 26.4, range 17–38; p < 0.0001). Jadad scores were also significantly higher for the major medical journals (mean 3.42, range 2–5) than neurosurgical journals (mean 2.45, range 1–5; p = 0.05). Conclusions Despite the growing volume of RCTs in neurosurgery, the quality of reporting of these trials remains suboptimal, especially in the neurosurgical journals. Improved awareness of the CONSORT guidelines by journal editors, reviewers, and authors of these papers could improve the methodology and reporting of RCTs in neurosurgery.

scholarly journals Quality of Reporting in Oncology Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 107327481878130
Author(s):  
Huiyun Zhu ◽  
Si Chen ◽  
Pei Xie ◽  
Geliang Yang ◽  
Zhenqiang Zhong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Solid Tumor ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Outcome Feedback ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Registration Rate ◽  
General Medical Journals

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are important for evidence-based medicine; however, their quality of reporting remains to be evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of the report concerning solid tumor medication. Articles were searched in PubMed to identify all oncology phase III RCTs published from 2011 to 2015, and the results were classified manually through Endnote X7.0 software. Registration rate, primary end point (PEP) consistency, positive result rate, enrollment time point, outcome feedback in the registry, and publish time zone were extracted and assessed. The overall registration rate was higher than years before; nevertheless, a portion of trials showed PEP discrepancies and enrolled patients before registration in either journal formats. Trials published in top 5 general medical journals paid more attention to results feedback on registration websites and were more prompt with publication after study accomplishment. Our data suggested general medical journals may be more rigorous compared to oncology journals but identified a preference for positive results. On the whole, RCTs published between 2011 and 2015 seemed fairly standardized. Surveillance in registry and outcome feedback still needs to be strengthened for the stringency and reliability of clinical trials in solid tumor medication territory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document