Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials published in Intensive Care Medicine from 2001 to 2010
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.
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).
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.
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.
KeywordsMethodology Quality of reporting Randomization Impact factor Google scholar Scopus Web of Science
We thank Prof. Massimo Antonelli, former Editor-in-Chief, and Prof. Jordi Mancebo, former Reviews Deputy Editor of Intensive Care Medicine, who suggested the investigation into the association between methodological quality of randomized controlled trials and frequency of citation.
- 7.Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Juni P, Pildal J, Als-Nielsen B, Balk EM, Gluud C, Gluud LL, JP AI, Schulz KF, Beynon R, Welton NJ, Wood L, Moher D, Deeks JJ, Sterne JA (2012) Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern MedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M (2008) Assessing the quality of randomised controlled trialssystematic reviews in health care. BMJ, London, pp 87–108Google Scholar
- 16.Latronico N, Botteri M, Minelli C, Zanotti C, Bertolini G, Candiani A (2002) Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in the intensive care literature. A systematic analysis of papers published in Intensive Care Medicine over 26 years. Intensive Care Med 28:1316–1323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Agha RA, Camm CF, Edison E, Orgill DP (2012) The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery needs improvement: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet SurgGoogle Scholar
- 29.Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Weeks L, Peters J, Kober T, Dias S, Schulz KF, Plint AC, Moher D (2012) Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:MR000030Google Scholar
- 43.Hyman M (2010) Science for sale: protect yourself from medical research deception. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/dangerous-spin-doctors-7-_b_747325.html. Accessed 28 June 2012
- 44.International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2013) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: publishing and editorial issues related to publication in biomedical journals: obligation to publish negative studies. http://www.icmje.org/publishing_1negative.html. Accessed 2 April 2013
- 48.Kesselheim AS, Robertson CT, Myers JA, Rose SL, Gillet VBA, Ross KM, Glynn RJ, Joffe S, Avorn J (2012) A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures. N Engl J Med 367:1119–1127Google Scholar
- 49.(2005) In praise of soft science. Nature 435:1003Google Scholar
- 58.Filion KB, Pless IB (2008) Factors related to the frequency of citation of epidemiologic publications. Epidemiol Perspect Innov EP+I 5:3Google Scholar