Discussion Sections in Reports of Controlled Trials Published in General Medical Journals

Mike J Clarke

125 citations0/0 files storedJAMA

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Academic Writing and Publishing Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Abstract

CONTEXT: Reliable interpretation of the results of a controlled trial entails setting its results in the context of similar research. A previous study showed that most reports of controlled trials published in 5 general medical journals in May 1997 were deficient in this respect. We assessed the extent to which reports of controlled trials published in the same 5 journals discussed new results in light of the totality of evidence from other controlled trials. METHODS: Assessment of the discussion sections in all 33 reports of randomized trials published during May 2001 in Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine. RESULTS: Three reports appeared to have been the first published trials to address the questions studied. In none of the remaining 30 reports were the results of the new trial discussed in the context of an updated systematic review of other trials. Although reference was made to relevant systematic reviews in 3 of these 30 reports, there was no integration, quantitative or qualitative, of the results of the new trials in an update of these reviews. In the remaining 27 reports, there was no evidence that any systematic attempt had been made to set the new results in the context of previous trials. CONCLUSIONS: Between 1997 and 2001, there was no evidence of progress in the proportion of reports of trials published in general medical journals that discussed the new results within the context of, or with reference to, up-to-date systematic reviews of relevant evidence from other controlled trials.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 125 citations exist upstream.

References

2001The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials 1996Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement 1998Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement 1998Discussion Sections in Reports of Controlled Trials Published in General Medical Journals 1999How can medical journals help prevent poor medical research? Some opportunities presented by electronic publishing

Cited by

2003Trying to do more Good than Harm in Policy and Practice: The Role of Rigorous, Transparent, Up-to-Date Evaluations 2004Monitoring global health: time for new solutions 2004Users' guide to detecting misleading claims in clinical research reports 2013Synthesizing Evidence 2004Doing New Research? Don't Forget the Old 2009Evidence synthesis as the key to more coherent and efficient research 2020Evidence-Based Research Series-Paper 2 : Using an Evidence-Based Research approach before a new study is conducted to ensure value 2009

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.