Should Systematic Reviewers Search for Randomized, Controlled Trials Published as Letters?

Abstract

Letters6 May 2008Should Systematic Reviewers Search for Randomized, Controlled Trials Published as Letters?Alla E. Iansavichene, MLIS, Margaret Sampson, MLIS, Jessie McGowan, MLIS, and Isola S.Y. Ajiferuke, PhDAlla E. Iansavichene, MLISFrom London Health Sciences Centre and University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, and Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute and Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Search for more papers by this author, Margaret Sampson, MLISFrom London Health Sciences Centre and University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, and Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute and Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Search for more papers by this author, Jessie McGowan, MLISFrom London Health Sciences Centre and University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, and Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute and Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Search for more papers by this author, and Isola S.Y. Ajiferuke, PhDFrom London Health Sciences Centre and University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, and Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute and Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-148-9-200805060-00023 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Background: A report by Deeks and Altman (1) found randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) published as letters to be incompletely reported and noncompliant with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). The authors recommended that journals reexamine their policies of publishing RCTs as short reports.We examined RCTs published as letters before and after these recommendations. Our interest stems from our involvement in information retrieval for systematic reviews. A rigorous search strategy is a key component in identifying evidence (2), because an inadequate search strategy could result in missed studies and misleading conclusions. Yet, these searches often exclude certain publication types, ...References1. Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Inadequate reporting of controlled trials as short reports [Letter]. Lancet. 1998;352:1908. [PMID: 9863796] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354:1896-900. [PMID: 10584742] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Haynes RB, Wilczynski N, McKibbon KA, Walker CJ, Sinclair JC. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in MEDLINE. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1994;1:447-58. [PMID: 7850570] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Dickersin K. How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data. AIDS Educ Prev. 1997;9:15-21. [PMID: 9083596] MedlineGoogle Scholar5. Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JP. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA. 2005;293:2362-6. [PMID: 15900006] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Askie L. Reporting of trials presented in conference abstracts needs to be improved. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:681-4. [PMID: 16765270] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: Alla E. Iansavichene, MLIS; Margaret Sampson, MLIS; Jessie McGowan, MLIS; Isola S.Y. Ajiferuke, PhDAffiliations: From London Health Sciences Centre and University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, and Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute and Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Acknowledgment: The authors thank N.J. Barrowman for generating the random sample and D. Moher for the insight regarding Lancet letters.Disclosures: None disclosed. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited byPRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic ReviewsRisk factors for the progression of finger interphalangeal joint osteoarthritis: a systematic reviewSearching for and selecting studies 6 May 2008Volume 148, Issue 9Page: 714-715KeywordsClinical trial reportingConflicts of interestDatabasesInformation retrievalInterquartile rangeSystematic reviews ePublished: 6 May 2008 Issue Published: 6 May 2008 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2008 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...

Cite this work

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

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.