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
. 2004 Jan 3;328(7430):22-4.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7430.22.

Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group

Heloisa P Soares  1 , Stephanie Daniels, Ambuj Kumar, Mike Clarke, Charles Scott, Suzanne Swann, Benjamin Djulbegovic; Radiation Therapy Oncology Group
Affiliations

Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group

Heloisa P Soares et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether poor reporting of methods in randomised controlled trials reflects on poor methods.

Design: Observational study.

Setting: Reports of randomised controlled trials conducted by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group since its establishment in 1968.

Participants: The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Outcome measures Content of reports compared with the design features described in the protocols for all randomised controlled trials.

Results: The methodological quality of 56 randomised controlled trials was better than reported. Adequate allocation concealment was achieved in all trials but reported in only 42% of papers. An intention to treat analysis was done in 83% of trials but reported in only 69% of papers. The sample size calculation was performed in 76% of the studies, but reported in only 16% of papers. End points were clearly defined and alpha and beta errors were prespecified in 76% and 74% of the trials, respectively, but only reported in 10% of the papers. The one exception was the description of drop outs, where the frequency of reporting was similar to that contained in the original statistical files of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group.

Conclusions: The reporting of methodological aspects of randomised controlled trials does not necessarily reflect the conduct of the trial. Reviewing research protocols and contacting trialists for more information may improve quality assessment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Quality of reporting compared with actual methodological quality of 56 randomised controlled trials (58 reports) conducted by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, based on information from published reports, protocols, and verification by the group. Absolute numbers of reports are shown
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998;352: 609-13. - PubMed
    1. Huwiler-Muntener K, Juni P, Junker C, Egger M. Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA 2002;287: 2801-4. - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001;285: 1987-91. - PubMed
    1. Godlee F. Publishing study protocols: making them visible will improve registration, reporting and recruitment. BMC News Views 2001;2: 4.
    1. Silagy CA, Middleton P, Hopewell S. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA 2002;287: 2831-4. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms