Cargando…

The external validity of published randomized controlled trials in primary care

BACKGROUND: A criticism of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) in primary care is that they lack external validity, participants being unrepresentative of the wider population. Our aim was to determine whether published primary care-based RCTs report information about how the study sample is assembl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jones, Ritu, Jones, Robert O, McCowan, Colin, Montgomery, Alan A, Fahey, Tom
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2632986/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19152681
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-10-5
_version_ 1782164062518378496
author Jones, Ritu
Jones, Robert O
McCowan, Colin
Montgomery, Alan A
Fahey, Tom
author_facet Jones, Ritu
Jones, Robert O
McCowan, Colin
Montgomery, Alan A
Fahey, Tom
author_sort Jones, Ritu
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A criticism of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) in primary care is that they lack external validity, participants being unrepresentative of the wider population. Our aim was to determine whether published primary care-based RCTs report information about how the study sample is assembled, and whether this is associated with RCT characteristics. METHODS: We reviewed RCTs published in four primary care journals in the years 2001–2004. Main outcomes were: (1) eligibility fraction (proportion eligible of those screened), (2) enrolment fraction (proportion randomised of those eligible), (3) recruitment fraction (proportion of potential participants actually randomised), and (4) number of patients needed to be screened (NNS) in order to randomize one participant. RESULTS: A total of 148 RCTs were reviewed. One hundred and three trials (70%) reported the number of individuals assessed by investigators for eligibility, 119 (80%) reported the number eligible for participation, and all reported the actual number recruited. The median eligibility fraction was 83% (IQR 40% to 100%), and the median enrolment fraction was 74% (IQR 49% to 92%). The median NNS was 2.43, with some trials reportedly recruiting every patient or practice screened for eligibility, and one trial screening 484 for each patient recruited. We found no association between NNS and journal, trial size, multi- or single-centre, funding source or type of intervention. There may be associations between provision of sufficient recruitment data for the calculation of NNS and funding source and type of intervention. CONCLUSION: RCTs reporting recruitment data in primary care suggest that once screened for eligibility and found to match inclusion criteria patients are likely to be randomized. This finding needs to be treated with caution as it may represent inadequate identification or reporting of the eligible population. A substantial minority of RCTs did not provide sufficient information about the patient recruitment process.
format Text
id pubmed-2632986
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26329862009-01-30 The external validity of published randomized controlled trials in primary care Jones, Ritu Jones, Robert O McCowan, Colin Montgomery, Alan A Fahey, Tom BMC Fam Pract Research Article BACKGROUND: A criticism of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) in primary care is that they lack external validity, participants being unrepresentative of the wider population. Our aim was to determine whether published primary care-based RCTs report information about how the study sample is assembled, and whether this is associated with RCT characteristics. METHODS: We reviewed RCTs published in four primary care journals in the years 2001–2004. Main outcomes were: (1) eligibility fraction (proportion eligible of those screened), (2) enrolment fraction (proportion randomised of those eligible), (3) recruitment fraction (proportion of potential participants actually randomised), and (4) number of patients needed to be screened (NNS) in order to randomize one participant. RESULTS: A total of 148 RCTs were reviewed. One hundred and three trials (70%) reported the number of individuals assessed by investigators for eligibility, 119 (80%) reported the number eligible for participation, and all reported the actual number recruited. The median eligibility fraction was 83% (IQR 40% to 100%), and the median enrolment fraction was 74% (IQR 49% to 92%). The median NNS was 2.43, with some trials reportedly recruiting every patient or practice screened for eligibility, and one trial screening 484 for each patient recruited. We found no association between NNS and journal, trial size, multi- or single-centre, funding source or type of intervention. There may be associations between provision of sufficient recruitment data for the calculation of NNS and funding source and type of intervention. CONCLUSION: RCTs reporting recruitment data in primary care suggest that once screened for eligibility and found to match inclusion criteria patients are likely to be randomized. This finding needs to be treated with caution as it may represent inadequate identification or reporting of the eligible population. A substantial minority of RCTs did not provide sufficient information about the patient recruitment process. BioMed Central 2009-01-19 /pmc/articles/PMC2632986/ /pubmed/19152681 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-10-5 Text en Copyright © 2009 Jones et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Jones, Ritu
Jones, Robert O
McCowan, Colin
Montgomery, Alan A
Fahey, Tom
The external validity of published randomized controlled trials in primary care
title The external validity of published randomized controlled trials in primary care
title_full The external validity of published randomized controlled trials in primary care
title_fullStr The external validity of published randomized controlled trials in primary care
title_full_unstemmed The external validity of published randomized controlled trials in primary care
title_short The external validity of published randomized controlled trials in primary care
title_sort external validity of published randomized controlled trials in primary care
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2632986/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19152681
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-10-5
work_keys_str_mv AT jonesritu theexternalvalidityofpublishedrandomizedcontrolledtrialsinprimarycare
AT jonesroberto theexternalvalidityofpublishedrandomizedcontrolledtrialsinprimarycare
AT mccowancolin theexternalvalidityofpublishedrandomizedcontrolledtrialsinprimarycare
AT montgomeryalana theexternalvalidityofpublishedrandomizedcontrolledtrialsinprimarycare
AT faheytom theexternalvalidityofpublishedrandomizedcontrolledtrialsinprimarycare
AT jonesritu externalvalidityofpublishedrandomizedcontrolledtrialsinprimarycare
AT jonesroberto externalvalidityofpublishedrandomizedcontrolledtrialsinprimarycare
AT mccowancolin externalvalidityofpublishedrandomizedcontrolledtrialsinprimarycare
AT montgomeryalana externalvalidityofpublishedrandomizedcontrolledtrialsinprimarycare
AT faheytom externalvalidityofpublishedrandomizedcontrolledtrialsinprimarycare