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
Meta-Analysis
. 2009 Apr 9:9:24.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-24.

Quality of reporting internal and external validity data from randomized controlled trials evaluating stents for percutaneous coronary intervention

Morgane Ethgen  1 , Lsabelle Boutron, Philippe Gabriel Steg, Carine Roy, Philippe Ravaud
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Quality of reporting internal and external validity data from randomized controlled trials evaluating stents for percutaneous coronary intervention

Morgane Ethgen et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: Stents are commonly used to treat patients with coronary artery disease. However, the quality of reporting internal and external validity data in published reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of stents has never been assessed.The objective of our study was to evaluate the quality of reporting internal and external validity data in published reports of RCTs assessing the stents for percutaneous coronary interventions.

Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted. Reports of RCTs assessing stents for percutaneous coronary interventions indexed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and published between January 2003 and September 2008 were selected. A standardized abstraction form was used to extract data. All analyses were adjusted for the effect of clustering articles by journal.

Results: 132 articles were analyzed. The generation of the allocation sequence was adequate in 58.3% of the reports; treatment allocation was concealed in 34.8%. Adequate blinding was reported in one-fifth of the reports. An intention-to-treat analysis was described in 79.5%. The main outcome was a surrogate angiographic endpoint in 47.0%. The volume of interventions per center was described in two reports. Operator expertise was described in five (3.8%) reports. The quality of reporting was better in journals with high impact factors and in journals endorsing the CONSORT statement.

Conclusion: The current reporting of results of RCTs testing stents needs to be improved to allow readers to appraise the risk of bias and the applicability of the results.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Serruys PW, Kutryk MJ. The state of the stent: current practices, controversies, and future trends. The American journal of cardiology. 1996;78(3A):4–7. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9149(96)00485-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schulz KF. Randomised trials, human nature, and reporting guidelines. Lancet. 1996;348(9027):596–598. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)01201-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, Gotzsche PC, Lang T. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134(8):663–694. - PubMed
    1. Hannan EL, Wu C, Walford G, King SB 3rd, Holmes DR Jr, Ambrose JA, Sharma S, Katz S, Clark LT, Jones RH. Volume-outcome relationships for percutaneous coronary interventions in the stent era. Circulation. 2005;112(8):1171–1179. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.528455. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Boutron I, Tubach F, Giraudeau B, Ravaud P. Methodological differences in clinical trials evaluating nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments of hip and knee osteoarthritis. Jama. 2003;290(8):1062–1070. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.8.1062. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms