Cargando…
Checklist to assess Trustworthiness in RAndomised Controlled Trials (TRACT checklist): concept proposal and pilot
OBJECTIVES: To propose a checklist that can be used to assess trustworthiness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DESIGN: A screening tool was developed using the four-stage approach proposed by Moher et al. This included defining the scope, reviewing the evidence base, suggesting a list of item...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10280869/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37337220 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00130-8 |
_version_ | 1785060892593881088 |
---|---|
author | Mol, Ben W. Lai, Shimona Rahim, Ayesha Bordewijk, Esmée M. Wang, Rui van Eekelen, Rik Gurrin, Lyle C. Thornton, Jim G. van Wely, Madelon Li, Wentao |
author_facet | Mol, Ben W. Lai, Shimona Rahim, Ayesha Bordewijk, Esmée M. Wang, Rui van Eekelen, Rik Gurrin, Lyle C. Thornton, Jim G. van Wely, Madelon Li, Wentao |
author_sort | Mol, Ben W. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To propose a checklist that can be used to assess trustworthiness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DESIGN: A screening tool was developed using the four-stage approach proposed by Moher et al. This included defining the scope, reviewing the evidence base, suggesting a list of items from piloting, and holding a consensus meeting. The initial checklist was set-up by a core group who had been involved in the assessment of problematic RCTs for several years. We piloted this in a consensus panel of several stakeholders, including health professionals, reviewers, journal editors, policymakers, researchers, and evidence-synthesis specialists. Each member was asked to score three articles with the checklist and the results were then discussed in consensus meetings. OUTCOME: The Trustworthiness in RAndomised Clinical Trials (TRACT) checklist includes 19 items organised into seven domains that are applicable to every RCT: 1) Governance, 2) Author Group, 3) Plausibility of Intervention Usage, 4) Timeframe, 5) Drop-out Rates, 6) Baseline Characteristics, and 7) Outcomes. Each item can be answered as either no concerns, some concerns/no information, or major concerns. If a study is assessed and found to have a majority of items rated at a major concern level, then editors, reviewers or evidence synthesizers should consider a more thorough investigation, including assessment of original individual participant data. CONCLUSIONS: The TRACT checklist is the first checklist developed specifically to detect trustworthiness issues in RCTs. It might help editors, publishers and researchers to screen for such issues in submitted or published RCTs in a transparent and replicable manner. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41073-023-00130-8. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10280869 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102808692023-06-21 Checklist to assess Trustworthiness in RAndomised Controlled Trials (TRACT checklist): concept proposal and pilot Mol, Ben W. Lai, Shimona Rahim, Ayesha Bordewijk, Esmée M. Wang, Rui van Eekelen, Rik Gurrin, Lyle C. Thornton, Jim G. van Wely, Madelon Li, Wentao Res Integr Peer Rev Research OBJECTIVES: To propose a checklist that can be used to assess trustworthiness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DESIGN: A screening tool was developed using the four-stage approach proposed by Moher et al. This included defining the scope, reviewing the evidence base, suggesting a list of items from piloting, and holding a consensus meeting. The initial checklist was set-up by a core group who had been involved in the assessment of problematic RCTs for several years. We piloted this in a consensus panel of several stakeholders, including health professionals, reviewers, journal editors, policymakers, researchers, and evidence-synthesis specialists. Each member was asked to score three articles with the checklist and the results were then discussed in consensus meetings. OUTCOME: The Trustworthiness in RAndomised Clinical Trials (TRACT) checklist includes 19 items organised into seven domains that are applicable to every RCT: 1) Governance, 2) Author Group, 3) Plausibility of Intervention Usage, 4) Timeframe, 5) Drop-out Rates, 6) Baseline Characteristics, and 7) Outcomes. Each item can be answered as either no concerns, some concerns/no information, or major concerns. If a study is assessed and found to have a majority of items rated at a major concern level, then editors, reviewers or evidence synthesizers should consider a more thorough investigation, including assessment of original individual participant data. CONCLUSIONS: The TRACT checklist is the first checklist developed specifically to detect trustworthiness issues in RCTs. It might help editors, publishers and researchers to screen for such issues in submitted or published RCTs in a transparent and replicable manner. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41073-023-00130-8. BioMed Central 2023-06-20 /pmc/articles/PMC10280869/ /pubmed/37337220 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00130-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Mol, Ben W. Lai, Shimona Rahim, Ayesha Bordewijk, Esmée M. Wang, Rui van Eekelen, Rik Gurrin, Lyle C. Thornton, Jim G. van Wely, Madelon Li, Wentao Checklist to assess Trustworthiness in RAndomised Controlled Trials (TRACT checklist): concept proposal and pilot |
title | Checklist to assess Trustworthiness in RAndomised Controlled Trials (TRACT checklist): concept proposal and pilot |
title_full | Checklist to assess Trustworthiness in RAndomised Controlled Trials (TRACT checklist): concept proposal and pilot |
title_fullStr | Checklist to assess Trustworthiness in RAndomised Controlled Trials (TRACT checklist): concept proposal and pilot |
title_full_unstemmed | Checklist to assess Trustworthiness in RAndomised Controlled Trials (TRACT checklist): concept proposal and pilot |
title_short | Checklist to assess Trustworthiness in RAndomised Controlled Trials (TRACT checklist): concept proposal and pilot |
title_sort | checklist to assess trustworthiness in randomised controlled trials (tract checklist): concept proposal and pilot |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10280869/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37337220 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00130-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT molbenw checklisttoassesstrustworthinessinrandomisedcontrolledtrialstractchecklistconceptproposalandpilot AT laishimona checklisttoassesstrustworthinessinrandomisedcontrolledtrialstractchecklistconceptproposalandpilot AT rahimayesha checklisttoassesstrustworthinessinrandomisedcontrolledtrialstractchecklistconceptproposalandpilot AT bordewijkesmeem checklisttoassesstrustworthinessinrandomisedcontrolledtrialstractchecklistconceptproposalandpilot AT wangrui checklisttoassesstrustworthinessinrandomisedcontrolledtrialstractchecklistconceptproposalandpilot AT vaneekelenrik checklisttoassesstrustworthinessinrandomisedcontrolledtrialstractchecklistconceptproposalandpilot AT gurrinlylec checklisttoassesstrustworthinessinrandomisedcontrolledtrialstractchecklistconceptproposalandpilot AT thorntonjimg checklisttoassesstrustworthinessinrandomisedcontrolledtrialstractchecklistconceptproposalandpilot AT vanwelymadelon checklisttoassesstrustworthinessinrandomisedcontrolledtrialstractchecklistconceptproposalandpilot AT liwentao checklisttoassesstrustworthinessinrandomisedcontrolledtrialstractchecklistconceptproposalandpilot |