Cargando…

The pathway to RCTs: how many roads are there? Examining the homogeneity of RCT justification

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) form the foundational background of modern medical practice. They are considered the highest quality of evidence, and their results help inform decisions concerning drug development and use, preventive therapies, and screening programs. However, the in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chow, Jeffrey Tin Yu, Lam, Kevin, Naeem, Abdul, Akanda, Zarique Z., Si, Francie Fengqin, Hodge, William
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5288880/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28148278
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1804-z
_version_ 1782504409194823680
author Chow, Jeffrey Tin Yu
Lam, Kevin
Naeem, Abdul
Akanda, Zarique Z.
Si, Francie Fengqin
Hodge, William
author_facet Chow, Jeffrey Tin Yu
Lam, Kevin
Naeem, Abdul
Akanda, Zarique Z.
Si, Francie Fengqin
Hodge, William
author_sort Chow, Jeffrey Tin Yu
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) form the foundational background of modern medical practice. They are considered the highest quality of evidence, and their results help inform decisions concerning drug development and use, preventive therapies, and screening programs. However, the inputs that justify an RCT to be conducted have not been studied. METHODS: We reviewed the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases across six specialties (Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology (ENT), General Surgery, Psychiatry, Obstetrics-Gynecology (OB-GYN), and Internal Medicine) and randomly chose 25 RCTs from each specialty except for Otorhinolaryngology (20 studies) and Internal Medicine (28 studies). For each RCT, we recorded information relating to the justification for conducting RCTs such as average study size cited, number of studies cited, and types of studies cited. The justification varied widely both within and between specialties. RESULTS: For Ophthalmology and OB-GYN, the average study sizes cited were around 1100 patients, whereas they were around 500 patients for Psychiatry and General Surgery. Between specialties, the average number of studies cited ranged from around 4.5 for ENT to around 10 for Ophthalmology, but the standard deviations were large, indicating that there was even more discrepancy within each specialty. When standardizing by the sample size of the RCT, some of the discrepancies between and within specialties can be explained, but not all. On average, Ophthalmology papers cited review articles the most (2.96 studies per RCT) compared to less than 1.5 studies per RCT for all other specialties. CONCLUSIONS: The justifications for RCTs vary widely both within and between specialties, and the justification for conducting RCTs is not standardized. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1804-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5288880
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52888802017-02-06 The pathway to RCTs: how many roads are there? Examining the homogeneity of RCT justification Chow, Jeffrey Tin Yu Lam, Kevin Naeem, Abdul Akanda, Zarique Z. Si, Francie Fengqin Hodge, William Trials Research BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) form the foundational background of modern medical practice. They are considered the highest quality of evidence, and their results help inform decisions concerning drug development and use, preventive therapies, and screening programs. However, the inputs that justify an RCT to be conducted have not been studied. METHODS: We reviewed the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases across six specialties (Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology (ENT), General Surgery, Psychiatry, Obstetrics-Gynecology (OB-GYN), and Internal Medicine) and randomly chose 25 RCTs from each specialty except for Otorhinolaryngology (20 studies) and Internal Medicine (28 studies). For each RCT, we recorded information relating to the justification for conducting RCTs such as average study size cited, number of studies cited, and types of studies cited. The justification varied widely both within and between specialties. RESULTS: For Ophthalmology and OB-GYN, the average study sizes cited were around 1100 patients, whereas they were around 500 patients for Psychiatry and General Surgery. Between specialties, the average number of studies cited ranged from around 4.5 for ENT to around 10 for Ophthalmology, but the standard deviations were large, indicating that there was even more discrepancy within each specialty. When standardizing by the sample size of the RCT, some of the discrepancies between and within specialties can be explained, but not all. On average, Ophthalmology papers cited review articles the most (2.96 studies per RCT) compared to less than 1.5 studies per RCT for all other specialties. CONCLUSIONS: The justifications for RCTs vary widely both within and between specialties, and the justification for conducting RCTs is not standardized. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1804-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-02-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5288880/ /pubmed/28148278 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1804-z Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Chow, Jeffrey Tin Yu
Lam, Kevin
Naeem, Abdul
Akanda, Zarique Z.
Si, Francie Fengqin
Hodge, William
The pathway to RCTs: how many roads are there? Examining the homogeneity of RCT justification
title The pathway to RCTs: how many roads are there? Examining the homogeneity of RCT justification
title_full The pathway to RCTs: how many roads are there? Examining the homogeneity of RCT justification
title_fullStr The pathway to RCTs: how many roads are there? Examining the homogeneity of RCT justification
title_full_unstemmed The pathway to RCTs: how many roads are there? Examining the homogeneity of RCT justification
title_short The pathway to RCTs: how many roads are there? Examining the homogeneity of RCT justification
title_sort pathway to rcts: how many roads are there? examining the homogeneity of rct justification
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5288880/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28148278
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1804-z
work_keys_str_mv AT chowjeffreytinyu thepathwaytorctshowmanyroadsarethereexaminingthehomogeneityofrctjustification
AT lamkevin thepathwaytorctshowmanyroadsarethereexaminingthehomogeneityofrctjustification
AT naeemabdul thepathwaytorctshowmanyroadsarethereexaminingthehomogeneityofrctjustification
AT akandazariquez thepathwaytorctshowmanyroadsarethereexaminingthehomogeneityofrctjustification
AT sifranciefengqin thepathwaytorctshowmanyroadsarethereexaminingthehomogeneityofrctjustification
AT hodgewilliam thepathwaytorctshowmanyroadsarethereexaminingthehomogeneityofrctjustification
AT chowjeffreytinyu pathwaytorctshowmanyroadsarethereexaminingthehomogeneityofrctjustification
AT lamkevin pathwaytorctshowmanyroadsarethereexaminingthehomogeneityofrctjustification
AT naeemabdul pathwaytorctshowmanyroadsarethereexaminingthehomogeneityofrctjustification
AT akandazariquez pathwaytorctshowmanyroadsarethereexaminingthehomogeneityofrctjustification
AT sifranciefengqin pathwaytorctshowmanyroadsarethereexaminingthehomogeneityofrctjustification
AT hodgewilliam pathwaytorctshowmanyroadsarethereexaminingthehomogeneityofrctjustification