Cargando…

The quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: There are concerns about the reporting quality of asthma trials. AIMS: To describe the reporting of contemporary asthma trials and to identify factors associated with better reporting quality. METHODS: Two reviewers independently searched MEDLINE for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ntala, Chara, Birmpili, Panagiota, Worth, Allison, Anderson, Niall H, Sheikh, Aziz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6442856/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24248328
http://dx.doi.org/10.4104/pcrj.2013.00089
_version_ 1783407771780120576
author Ntala, Chara
Birmpili, Panagiota
Worth, Allison
Anderson, Niall H
Sheikh, Aziz
author_facet Ntala, Chara
Birmpili, Panagiota
Worth, Allison
Anderson, Niall H
Sheikh, Aziz
author_sort Ntala, Chara
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There are concerns about the reporting quality of asthma trials. AIMS: To describe the reporting of contemporary asthma trials and to identify factors associated with better reporting quality. METHODS: Two reviewers independently searched MEDLINE for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of asthma published between January 2010 and July 2012 in leading generalist and specialist journals. We calculated the proportion of trials that adequately reported each Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist item and an overall quality score for each trial. Factors associated with better reporting quality were investigated. RESULTS: Thirty-five RCTs satisfied our eligibility criteria. Four trials adequately reported <50% of the items, 15 adequately reported 50–60% of items, and 16 adequately reported >60% of items. Seventeen of the 38 CONSORT items were consistently well reported in more than two-thirds of the articles. In contrast, nine items were poorly reported in more than half the trials — namely, identification as a randomised trial in the title (40.0%), an adequate structured summary/abstract (48.6%), details of eligibility criteria (34.3%), recruitment (48.6%), randomisation procedures (22.9%), intervention (38.5%), harms (34.3%), the funding source (45.7%), and access to the full trial protocol (17.1%). Studies led by teams in high-income country settings were associated with better quality of reporting (relative risk=1.33, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.64). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting in contemporary asthma literature remains suboptimal. We have identified important areas in which reporting quality needs to be improved.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6442856
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64428562019-07-01 The quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: a systematic review Ntala, Chara Birmpili, Panagiota Worth, Allison Anderson, Niall H Sheikh, Aziz Prim Care Respir J Research Paper BACKGROUND: There are concerns about the reporting quality of asthma trials. AIMS: To describe the reporting of contemporary asthma trials and to identify factors associated with better reporting quality. METHODS: Two reviewers independently searched MEDLINE for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of asthma published between January 2010 and July 2012 in leading generalist and specialist journals. We calculated the proportion of trials that adequately reported each Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist item and an overall quality score for each trial. Factors associated with better reporting quality were investigated. RESULTS: Thirty-five RCTs satisfied our eligibility criteria. Four trials adequately reported <50% of the items, 15 adequately reported 50–60% of items, and 16 adequately reported >60% of items. Seventeen of the 38 CONSORT items were consistently well reported in more than two-thirds of the articles. In contrast, nine items were poorly reported in more than half the trials — namely, identification as a randomised trial in the title (40.0%), an adequate structured summary/abstract (48.6%), details of eligibility criteria (34.3%), recruitment (48.6%), randomisation procedures (22.9%), intervention (38.5%), harms (34.3%), the funding source (45.7%), and access to the full trial protocol (17.1%). Studies led by teams in high-income country settings were associated with better quality of reporting (relative risk=1.33, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.64). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting in contemporary asthma literature remains suboptimal. We have identified important areas in which reporting quality needs to be improved. Nature Publishing Group 2013-12 2013-11-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6442856/ /pubmed/24248328 http://dx.doi.org/10.4104/pcrj.2013.00089 Text en Copyright © 2013 Primary Care Respiratory Society UK
spellingShingle Research Paper
Ntala, Chara
Birmpili, Panagiota
Worth, Allison
Anderson, Niall H
Sheikh, Aziz
The quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: a systematic review
title The quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: a systematic review
title_full The quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: a systematic review
title_fullStr The quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed The quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: a systematic review
title_short The quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: a systematic review
title_sort quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: a systematic review
topic Research Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6442856/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24248328
http://dx.doi.org/10.4104/pcrj.2013.00089
work_keys_str_mv AT ntalachara thequalityofreportingofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinasthmaasystematicreview
AT birmpilipanagiota thequalityofreportingofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinasthmaasystematicreview
AT worthallison thequalityofreportingofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinasthmaasystematicreview
AT andersonniallh thequalityofreportingofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinasthmaasystematicreview
AT sheikhaziz thequalityofreportingofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinasthmaasystematicreview
AT ntalachara qualityofreportingofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinasthmaasystematicreview
AT birmpilipanagiota qualityofreportingofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinasthmaasystematicreview
AT worthallison qualityofreportingofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinasthmaasystematicreview
AT andersonniallh qualityofreportingofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinasthmaasystematicreview
AT sheikhaziz qualityofreportingofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinasthmaasystematicreview