Back to Search Start Over

Quality of reporting of modern randomized controlled trials in medical oncology: a systematic review

Authors :
Hui K Gan
Gregory R. Pond
Benoit You
Eric Chen
Julien Péron
Denis Maillet
Roula Almufti
Biostatistiques santé
Département biostatistiques et modélisation pour la santé et l'environnement [LBBE]
Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive - UMR 5558 (LBBE)
Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 (UCBL)
Université de Lyon-Université de Lyon-Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (Inria)-VetAgro Sup - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur et de recherche en alimentation, santé animale, sciences agronomiques et de l'environnement (VAS)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 (UCBL)
Université de Lyon-Université de Lyon-Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (Inria)-VetAgro Sup - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur et de recherche en alimentation, santé animale, sciences agronomiques et de l'environnement (VAS)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive - UMR 5558 (LBBE)
Université de Lyon-Université de Lyon-Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (Inria)-VetAgro Sup - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur et de recherche en alimentation, santé animale, sciences agronomiques et de l'environnement (VAS)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
Source :
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2012, 104, pp.982-9. ⟨10.1093/jnci/djs259⟩, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2012, 104, pp.982-9. ⟨10.1093/jnci/djs259⟩
Publication Year :
2012
Publisher :
HAL CCSD, 2012.

Abstract

BACKGROUND The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines were developed in the mid-1990s for the explicit purpose of improving clinical trial reporting. However, there is little information regarding the adherence to CONSORT guidelines of recent publications of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology. METHODS All phase III RCTs published between 2005 and 2009 were reviewed using an 18-point overall quality score for reporting based on the 2001 CONSORT statement. Multivariable linear regression was used to identify features associated with improved reporting quality. To provide baseline data for future evaluations of reporting quality, RCTs were also assessed according to the 2010 revised CONSORT statement. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS A total of 357 RCTs were reviewed. The mean 2001 overall quality score was 13.4 on a scale of 0-18, whereas the mean 2010 overall quality score was 19.3 on a scale of 0-27. The overall RCT reporting quality score improved by 0.21 points per year from 2005 to 2009. Poorly reported items included method used to generate the random allocation (adequately reported in 29% of trials), whether and how blinding was applied (41%), method of allocation concealment (51%), and participant flow (59%). High impact factor (IF, P = .003), recent publication date (P = .008), and geographic origin of RCTs (P = .003) were independent factors statistically significantly associated with higher reporting quality in a multivariable regression model. Sample size, tumor type, and positivity of trial results were not associated with higher reporting quality, whereas funding source and treatment type had a borderline statistically significant impact. CONCLUSION The results show that numerous items remained unreported for many trials. Thus, given the potential impact of poorly reported trials, oncology journals should require even stricter adherence to the CONSORT guidelines.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
00278874 and 14602105
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2012, 104, pp.982-9. ⟨10.1093/jnci/djs259⟩, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2012, 104, pp.982-9. ⟨10.1093/jnci/djs259⟩
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....eb2b47717e8b35e3f335dae5d83ed0b0
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djs259⟩