Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2000 May 13;320(7245):1308-11.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7245.1308.

Size and quality of randomised controlled trials in head injury: review of published studies

K Dickinson  1 , F Bunn, R Wentz, P Edwards, I Roberts
Affiliations
Review

Size and quality of randomised controlled trials in head injury: review of published studies

K Dickinson et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To assess whether trials in head injury are large enough to avoid moderate random errors and designed to avoid moderate biases.

Design: All randomised controlled trials on the treatment and rehabilitation of patients with head injury published before December 1998 were surveyed. Trials were identified from electronic databases, by hand searching journals and conference proceedings, and by contacting researchers. Data were extracted on the number of participants, quality of concealment of allocation, use of blinding, loss to follow up, and types of participants, interventions, and outcome measures.

Results: 279 reports were identified, containing information on 208 separate trials. The average number of participants per trial was 82, with no evidence of increasing size over time. The total number of randomised participants in the 203 trials in which size was reported was 16 613. No trials were large enough to detect reliably a 5% absolute reduction in the risk of death or disability, and only 4% were large enough to detect an absolute reduction of 10%. Concealment of allocation was adequate in 22 and inadequate or unclear in 25 of the 47 (23%) in which it was reported. Of 126 trials assessing disability, 111 reported the number of patients followed up, and average loss to follow up was 19%. Of trials measuring disability, 26 (21%) reported that outcome assessors were blinded.

Conclusions: Randomised trials in head injury are too small and poorly designed to detect or refute reliably moderate but clinically important benefits or hazards of treatment. Limited funding for injury research and unfamiliarity with issues of consent may have been important obstacles.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure
Figure
Trial size and smallest absolute risk reduction detectable
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Murray CJL, Lopez AD. Global health statistics: a compendium of incidence, prevalence and mortality estimates for over 200 conditions. Boston: Harvard University Press; 1996.
    1. World Bank. Global road safety partnership. Washington, DC: World Bank; 1999.
    1. Peto R, Collins R, Gray R. Large-scale randomised evidence: large simple trials and overviews of trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:23–40. - PubMed
    1. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408–412. - PubMed
    1. Teasdale G. The treatment of head trauma: implications for the future. J Neurotrauma. 1991;8(suppl 1):53–60. - PubMed

Publication types