How well is the clinical importance of study results reported? An assessment of randomized controlled trials
- PMID: 11706908
- PMCID: PMC81581
How well is the clinical importance of study results reported? An assessment of randomized controlled trials
Abstract
Background: The interpretation of the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has traditionally emphasized statistical significance rather than clinical importance. Our aim was to assess the quality of reporting of factors related to clinical importance in a sample of published RCTs.
Methods: A random sample of 27 (of a total of 266) RCTs published in 5 major medical journals over a 1-year period were reviewed by 4 independent reviewers for factors considered important in the interpretation of the clinical importance of study results: identification of a clearly defined primary outcome, reporting of the expected difference between groups used in the calculation of sample size (the delta value) and whether it was based on the minimal clinically important difference of the intervention, the statistical significance of the results, presentation of pertinent confidence intervals, and the authors' interpretation of the clinical importance of the results.
Results: Twenty-two of 27 (81%) articles explicitly reported a single primary outcome. Of the 20 articles that included a sample size calculation, 18 (90%) reported a delta value. Two of the 18 (11%) articles explicitly stated that the delta value was chosen to reflect the minimal clinically important difference of the intervention. For the primary outcomes, confidence intervals surrounding the point estimates of the efficacy of the interventions were reported in 11 of 27 (41%) studies. The study results were interpreted from the perspective of clinical importance in 20 of 27 (74%) of the articles. Of these 20 reports, 5 (25%) provided justification for their clinical interpretation of the results.
Interpretation: Authors of RCTs published in major general medical and internal medicine journals do not consistently provide their own interpretation of the clinical importance of their results, and they often do not provide sufficient information to allow readers to make their own interpretation.
Comment in
-
Reporting the clinical importance of randomized controlled trials.CMAJ. 2002 Mar 19;166(6):711-2; author reply 712. CMAJ. 2002. PMID: 11944756 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Reporting the clinical importance of randomized controlled trials.CMAJ. 2002 Mar 19;166(6):712; author reply 712. CMAJ. 2002. PMID: 11944757 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Assessing quality of reports on randomized clinical trials in nursing journals.Can J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2009;19(2):25-39. Can J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2009. PMID: 19517902 English, French.
-
Improvement in the quality of randomized controlled trials among general anesthesiology journals 2000 to 2006: a 6-year follow-up.Anesth Analg. 2009 Jun;108(6):1916-21. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31819fe6d7. Anesth Analg. 2009. PMID: 19448222
-
The number, content, and quality of randomized controlled trials in the prevention and care of injuries.J Trauma. 2008 Dec;65(6):1488-93. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181568cfc. J Trauma. 2008. PMID: 19077647 Review.
-
Reporting of safety results in published reports of randomized controlled trials.Arch Intern Med. 2009 Oct 26;169(19):1756-61. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.306. Arch Intern Med. 2009. PMID: 19858432
-
The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: survey of major general medical journals.J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Apr;62(4):387-92. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.05.013. Epub 2008 Nov 17. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009. PMID: 19010643 Review.
Cited by
-
DELTA2 guidance on choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial.BMJ. 2018 Nov 5;363:k3750. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k3750. BMJ. 2018. PMID: 30560792 Free PMC article.
-
A systematic review of the quality of publications reporting coronary artery bypass grafting trials.Can J Surg. 2007 Aug;50(4):266-77. Can J Surg. 2007. PMID: 17897515 Free PMC article.
-
Determination of the clinical importance of study results.J Gen Intern Med. 2002 Jun;17(6):469-76. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.11111.x. J Gen Intern Med. 2002. PMID: 12133163 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Delta inflation: a bias in the design of randomized controlled trials in critical care medicine.Crit Care. 2010;14(2):R77. doi: 10.1186/cc8990. Epub 2010 Apr 29. Crit Care. 2010. PMID: 20429873 Free PMC article.
-
A randomized controlled trial comparing immersive virtual reality games versus nitrous oxide for pain reduction in common outpatient procedures in pediatric surgery.Trials. 2025 Jan 20;26(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s13063-025-08718-9. Trials. 2025. PMID: 39833849 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2001;134(8):657-62. - PubMed
-
- Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P. Clinical epidemiology:a basic science for clinical medicine. 2nd ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1991.
-
- Greene WL, Concato J, Feinstein AR. Claims of equivalence in medical research: Are they supported by the evidence? Ann Intern Med 2000;132:715-22. - PubMed
-
- Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407-15. - PubMed
-
- Hart RG, Halperin JL, McBride R, Benavente O, Man-Son-Hing M, Kronmal RA. Aspirin for the primary prevention of stroke and other major vascular events. Arch Neurol 2000;57:326-32. - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical