Intensive Care Medicine

, Volume 39, Issue 8, pp 1386–1395

Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials published in Intensive Care Medicine from 2001 to 2010

  • Nicola Latronico
  • Marta Metelli
  • Maddalena Turin
  • Simone Piva
  • Frank A. Rasulo
  • Cosetta Minelli
Original

DOI: 10.1007/s00134-013-2947-3

Cite this article as:
Latronico, N., Metelli, M., Turin, M. et al. Intensive Care Med (2013) 39: 1386. doi:10.1007/s00134-013-2947-3

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in Intensive Care Medicine from 2001 to 2010, and to compare it with a previous review of RCTs published from 1975 to 2000.

Methods

We assessed the quality of reporting of randomization, blinding and participant flow, both individually and combined within the Jadad scale, and compared them with findings from our previous review. For RCTs published from 2001 to 2010, we also evaluated the frequency of distorted finding presentation (spin) and inflated predicted treatment effect (delta inflation).

Results

In the 221 RCTs from 2001 to 2010, the sample size was significantly larger than in the older series, and there was a higher proportion of studies with negative findings. Reporting of the rationale for sample size estimation and allocation concealment increased significantly, but reporting of other important individual methodological components did not change substantially compared with the previous period and remained low. Among RCTs from 2001 to 2010, a spin strategy was used in 69 of 111 RCTs with statistically negative results, while delta inflation was present in 7 of 11 RCTs evaluating survival as a primary outcome. Papers with higher Jadad scores were cited more often than the others.

Conclusions

Quality of reporting of RCTs published in Intensive Care Medicine has only partly improved over time, and spin and delta bias are of frequent occurrence. There is a need for stronger adherence to CONSORT recommendations, with special emphasis on accurate description of randomization and blindness, and correct reporting of statistically non-significant results.

Keywords

MethodologyQuality of reportingRandomizationImpact factorGoogle scholarScopusWeb of Science

Supplementary material

134_2013_2947_MOESM1_ESM.ppt (97 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPT 97 kb)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg and ESICM 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicola Latronico
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marta Metelli
    • 1
  • Maddalena Turin
    • 1
  • Simone Piva
    • 2
  • Frank A. Rasulo
    • 2
  • Cosetta Minelli
    • 3
  1. 1.University Division of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Perioperative MedicineUniversity of BresciaBresciaItaly
  2. 2.University Division of Neuroanesthesia and Neurocritical Care, Department of Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Perioperative MedicineUniversity of BresciaBresciaItaly
  3. 3.Respiratory Epidemiology and Public Health Group, National Heart and Lung InstituteImperial College LondonLondonUK