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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |