Reporting of methodologic information on trial registries for quality assessment: a study of trial records retrieved from the WHO search portal.
<h4>Background</h4>Although randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard of evidence, their reporting is often suboptimal. Trial registries have the potential to contribute important methodologic information for critical appraisal of study results.<h4>Methods...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2010
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/62aa5d7313a64e2d8902294929b3f3ba |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| id |
oai:doaj.org-article:62aa5d7313a64e2d8902294929b3f3ba |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
oai:doaj.org-article:62aa5d7313a64e2d8902294929b3f3ba2021-11-18T06:35:34ZReporting of methodologic information on trial registries for quality assessment: a study of trial records retrieved from the WHO search portal.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0012484https://doaj.org/article/62aa5d7313a64e2d8902294929b3f3ba2010-08-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/20824212/pdf/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Background</h4>Although randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard of evidence, their reporting is often suboptimal. Trial registries have the potential to contribute important methodologic information for critical appraisal of study results.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>The objective of the study was to evaluate the reporting of key methodologic study characteristics in trial registries. We identified a random sample (n = 265) of actively recruiting RCTs using the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal in 2008. We assessed the reporting of relevant domains from the Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool and other key methodological aspects. Our primary outcomes were the proportion of registry records with adequate reporting of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and trial outcomes. Two reviewers independently assessed each record. Weighted overall proportions in the ICTRP search portal for adequate reporting of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding (including and excluding open label RCT) and primary outcomes were 5.7% (95% CI 3.0-8.4%), 1.4% (0-2.8%), 41% (35-47%), 8.4% (4.1-13%), and 66% (60-72%), respectively. The proportion of adequately reported RCTs was higher for registries that used specific methodological fields for describing methods of randomization and allocation concealment compared to registries that did not. Concerning other key methodological aspects, weighted overall proportions of RCTs with adequately reported items were as follows: eligibility criteria (81%), secondary outcomes (46%), harm (5%) follow-up duration (62%), description of the interventions (53%) and sample size calculation (1%).<h4>Conclusions</h4>Trial registries currently contain limited methodologic information about registered RCTs. In order to permit adequate critical appraisal of trial results reported in journals and registries, trial registries should consider requesting details on key RCT methods to complement journal publications. Full protocols remain the most comprehensive source of methodologic information and should be made publicly available.Ludovic ReveizAn-Wen ChanKarmela Krleza-JerićCarlos Eduardo GranadosMariona PinartItziar EtxeandiaDiego RadaMonserrat MartinezXavier BonfillAndrés Felipe CardonaPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 5, Iss 8, p e12484 (2010) |
| institution |
DOAJ |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| language |
EN |
| topic |
Medicine R Science Q |
| spellingShingle |
Medicine R Science Q Ludovic Reveiz An-Wen Chan Karmela Krleza-Jerić Carlos Eduardo Granados Mariona Pinart Itziar Etxeandia Diego Rada Monserrat Martinez Xavier Bonfill Andrés Felipe Cardona Reporting of methodologic information on trial registries for quality assessment: a study of trial records retrieved from the WHO search portal. |
| description |
<h4>Background</h4>Although randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard of evidence, their reporting is often suboptimal. Trial registries have the potential to contribute important methodologic information for critical appraisal of study results.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>The objective of the study was to evaluate the reporting of key methodologic study characteristics in trial registries. We identified a random sample (n = 265) of actively recruiting RCTs using the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal in 2008. We assessed the reporting of relevant domains from the Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool and other key methodological aspects. Our primary outcomes were the proportion of registry records with adequate reporting of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and trial outcomes. Two reviewers independently assessed each record. Weighted overall proportions in the ICTRP search portal for adequate reporting of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding (including and excluding open label RCT) and primary outcomes were 5.7% (95% CI 3.0-8.4%), 1.4% (0-2.8%), 41% (35-47%), 8.4% (4.1-13%), and 66% (60-72%), respectively. The proportion of adequately reported RCTs was higher for registries that used specific methodological fields for describing methods of randomization and allocation concealment compared to registries that did not. Concerning other key methodological aspects, weighted overall proportions of RCTs with adequately reported items were as follows: eligibility criteria (81%), secondary outcomes (46%), harm (5%) follow-up duration (62%), description of the interventions (53%) and sample size calculation (1%).<h4>Conclusions</h4>Trial registries currently contain limited methodologic information about registered RCTs. In order to permit adequate critical appraisal of trial results reported in journals and registries, trial registries should consider requesting details on key RCT methods to complement journal publications. Full protocols remain the most comprehensive source of methodologic information and should be made publicly available. |
| format |
article |
| author |
Ludovic Reveiz An-Wen Chan Karmela Krleza-Jerić Carlos Eduardo Granados Mariona Pinart Itziar Etxeandia Diego Rada Monserrat Martinez Xavier Bonfill Andrés Felipe Cardona |
| author_facet |
Ludovic Reveiz An-Wen Chan Karmela Krleza-Jerić Carlos Eduardo Granados Mariona Pinart Itziar Etxeandia Diego Rada Monserrat Martinez Xavier Bonfill Andrés Felipe Cardona |
| author_sort |
Ludovic Reveiz |
| title |
Reporting of methodologic information on trial registries for quality assessment: a study of trial records retrieved from the WHO search portal. |
| title_short |
Reporting of methodologic information on trial registries for quality assessment: a study of trial records retrieved from the WHO search portal. |
| title_full |
Reporting of methodologic information on trial registries for quality assessment: a study of trial records retrieved from the WHO search portal. |
| title_fullStr |
Reporting of methodologic information on trial registries for quality assessment: a study of trial records retrieved from the WHO search portal. |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Reporting of methodologic information on trial registries for quality assessment: a study of trial records retrieved from the WHO search portal. |
| title_sort |
reporting of methodologic information on trial registries for quality assessment: a study of trial records retrieved from the who search portal. |
| publisher |
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| publishDate |
2010 |
| url |
https://doaj.org/article/62aa5d7313a64e2d8902294929b3f3ba |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT ludovicreveiz reportingofmethodologicinformationontrialregistriesforqualityassessmentastudyoftrialrecordsretrievedfromthewhosearchportal AT anwenchan reportingofmethodologicinformationontrialregistriesforqualityassessmentastudyoftrialrecordsretrievedfromthewhosearchportal AT karmelakrlezajeric reportingofmethodologicinformationontrialregistriesforqualityassessmentastudyoftrialrecordsretrievedfromthewhosearchportal AT carloseduardogranados reportingofmethodologicinformationontrialregistriesforqualityassessmentastudyoftrialrecordsretrievedfromthewhosearchportal AT marionapinart reportingofmethodologicinformationontrialregistriesforqualityassessmentastudyoftrialrecordsretrievedfromthewhosearchportal AT itziaretxeandia reportingofmethodologicinformationontrialregistriesforqualityassessmentastudyoftrialrecordsretrievedfromthewhosearchportal AT diegorada reportingofmethodologicinformationontrialregistriesforqualityassessmentastudyoftrialrecordsretrievedfromthewhosearchportal AT monserratmartinez reportingofmethodologicinformationontrialregistriesforqualityassessmentastudyoftrialrecordsretrievedfromthewhosearchportal AT xavierbonfill reportingofmethodologicinformationontrialregistriesforqualityassessmentastudyoftrialrecordsretrievedfromthewhosearchportal AT andresfelipecardona reportingofmethodologicinformationontrialregistriesforqualityassessmentastudyoftrialrecordsretrievedfromthewhosearchportal |
| _version_ |
1718424418767601664 |