Original articlesDiscrepancy between published report and actual conduct of randomized clinical trials
Introduction
Increasingly, authors of meta-analyses are assessing the methodology of randomized clinical trials (RCT) as a means of determining the “quality” of RCTs. These quality scales generally rely on the published account of the RCT. Previous studies have shown that RCT publications that describe inadequate methods of random-sequence generation, allocation concealment, or blinding yield inflated estimates of a treatment's effect, compared to those that describe adequate trial methods 1, 2, 3. In addition, trial publications that do not include any description of allocation concealment yield similar inflated estimates of effect [2]. Allocation concealment is a process distinct from blinding that conceals the random assignment sequence from the investigator and participant before and until allocation to therapy, with the aim of reducing selection bias [4]. The objective of our study was to compare RCT publications with an investigator survey of actual trial conduct for the methods of random-sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding.
Section snippets
Methods
As part of a study evaluating the methodology of rheumatology RCTs, we searched for publications in English of RCTs for treatment of rheumatic diseases published in 1997/1998 using MEDLINE and a hand search of rheumatology journals, Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Arthritis & Rheumatism, British Journal of Rheumatology, Journal of Rheumatology, Osteoarthritis & Cartilage, and Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology [5]. Each of the publications was assessed for trial methods by one reviewer
Results
Of the 50 investigators contacted, 40 (80%) responded. There were no significant differences between the published description of adequate random-sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding in the RCT publication between survey responders and nonresponders. In the survey, investigators responded that methods of random-sequence generation and allocation concealment that were defined as adequate were actually performed much more frequently than was evident from the RCT publication
Discussion
Our survey results suggest that absence of reporting of methods in a trial report does not necessarily mean that trialists did not carry out these methods. Despite the CONSORT statement (1996) to encourage improved standards for RCT reporting [6], our survey suggests that RCT publications do not contain comprehensive descriptions of the trial methods that are actually used. Our results have implications for the use of quality scoring of RCTs for meta-analytic purposes, in that scales that
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by NIH AR47785. Catherine Hill was supported by a grant from the Arthritis Foundation of Australia.
References (14)
- et al.
Does the quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reorted in meta-analyses?
Lancet
(1998) - et al.
Quality assessment of reports on clinical trials in the Journal of Hepatology
J Hepatol
(1998) - et al.
Empirical evidence of biasdimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effect in controlled trials
JAMA
(1995) - et al.
Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses
Ann Intern Med
(2001) Subverting randomization in controlled trials
JAMA
(1995)- et al.
Secular changes in the quality of randomized clinical trials in rheumatology
Arthritis Rheum
(2002) - et al.
Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement
JAMA
(1996)
Cited by (94)
Between-trial heterogeneity in meta-analyses may be partially explained by reported design characteristics
2018, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyTaxonomy for colorectal cancer screening promotion: Lessons from recent randomized controlled trials
2017, Preventive MedicineUnreported formal assessment of unblinding occurred in 4 of 10 randomized clinical trials, unreported loss of blinding in 1 of 10 trials
2017, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyCitation Excerpt :All 24 trials that reported assessment of the risk of unblinding had subjective outcomes [16]. It has been repeatedly documented that methodological aspects of randomized clinical trial often are reported inadequately in trial publications [15,21,22,25–27]. This also includes the reporting of blinding procedures [15,21].
The risk of unblinding was infrequently and incompletely reported in 300 randomized clinical trial publications
2014, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyIssues of reporting in observational studies in veterinary medicine
2014, Preventive Veterinary Medicine
- †
Current address: Rheumatology Unit, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville, South Australia.