Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Reporting in the Treatment of Sarcomas

Maud Toulmonde · Carine A. Bellera · Simone Mathoulin‐Pélissier · Marc Debled · Binh Bui · Antoîne Italiano

50 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Clinical Oncology

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 Sarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Abstract

PURPOSE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represent the best evidence in oncology practice. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of sarcoma RCTs and to identify significant predictors of quality. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two investigators searched MEDLINE for pediatric and adult bone and soft tissue sarcoma RCTs published between January 1988 and December 2008. The quality of each report was assessed by using a 15-point overall reporting quality score based on 15 items from the revised Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (overall quality score [OQS] range, 0 to 15 points). Concealment of allocation, appropriate blinding, and analysis according to intention-to-treat principle were assessed separately because of their crucial methodologic importance by using a 3-point key methodologic index score (MIS; range, 0 to 3). RESULTS: We retrieved 72 relevant RCTs that included 16,029 patients. The median OQS was 9.5. Allocation concealment, blinding, and analysis by intent to treat were reported only in 21 (29%), nine (12.5%), and 23 (32%) of the 72 RCTs, respectively. The median MIS was 1 with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 2. On multivariate analysis, publication after 1996 and high impact factor remained independent and significant predictors of improved OQS. The sole variable associated with improved MIS was the publication of chemotherapy-only trials. CONCLUSION: Although the overall quality of sarcoma RCTs reporting has improved over time, reporting of key methodologic issues remains poor. This may lead to biased interpretation of sarcoma trial results.

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 — 50 citations exist upstream.

References

1995Empirical Evidence of Bias 1995Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials 2001The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration 1998Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?1996Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement 1996Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials 2001Use of the CONSORT Statement and Quality of Reports of Randomized Trials 2006Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review

Cited by

2011Quality of the supportive and palliative oncology literature: a focused analysis on randomized controlled trials 2013Quality of reporting and its correlates among randomized controlled trials on acupuncture for cancer pain: application of the CONSORT 2010 Statement and STRICTA 2014Quality of reporting on randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for stroke rehabilitation 2016Abstracts reporting of HIV/AIDS randomized controlled trials in general medicine and infectious diseases journals: completeness to date and improvement in the quality since CONSORT extension for abstracts

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.