Systematic Evaluation of the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in Diabetes

Víctor M. Montori · Yaqian Grace Wang · Pablo Alonso‐Coello · Sumit Bhagra

38 citations0/0 files storedDiabetes Care

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 Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically ascertain the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We identified the 10 most recently published trials as of 31 October 2003 in each of six general medical, five diabetes, and five metabolism and nutrition journals and further enriched our sample with 10 additional RCTs from each of five journals that published the most eligible RCTs in a year. We explored the association between trial characteristics and reporting quality using univariate analyses and a preplanned multivariate regression model. RESULTS: After excluding redundant reports of included trials and one trial that measured outcomes on the health system and not on patients, we included 199 RCTs: 119 assessed physiological and other laboratory outcomes, 42 assessed patient-important outcomes (e.g., morbidity and mortality, quality of life), and 38 assessed surrogate outcomes (e.g., disease progression or regression, HbA(1c), cholesterol). Fifty-three percent were of low methodological quality, as were one-third (36-40%) of trials reporting patient-important or surrogate outcomes and two-thirds (64%) of laboratory investigations. Independent predictors of low quality were nonprofit funding source (odds ratio 3.1 [95% CI 1.5-6.2]), measure of physiological and laboratory outcomes (2.3 [1.2-4.4]), and cross-over design (2.3 [1.1-4.8]), all characteristics of laboratory clinical investigations. CONCLUSIONS: There is ample room for improving the quality of diabetes trials. To enhance the practice of evidence-based diabetes care, trialists need to pay closer attention to the rigorous implementation and reporting of important methodological safeguards against bias in randomized 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 — 38 citations exist upstream.

References

2001The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials 2001The CONSORT Statement: Revised Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Reports of Parallel-Group Randomized Trials 2004Better Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement 2001Value of Flow Diagrams in Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials 2001Physician Interpretations and Textbook Definitions of Blinding Terminology in Randomized Controlled Trials 2005The quality of randomized trial reporting in leading medical journals since the revised CONSORT statement 2004An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods 2005Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: cohort study

Cited by

2012Outcomes in Registered, Ongoing Randomized Controlled Trials of Patient Education 2016Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in chiropractic using the CONSORT checklist 2019Endorsement of reporting guidelines and study registration by endocrine and internal medicine journals: meta-epidemiological study

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.