Generalizability of findings from randomized controlled trials is limited in the leading general medical journals

Antti V. Malmivaara

69 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Clinical Epidemiology

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 Clinical practice guidelines implementation

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To document reporting of study characteristics of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the four leading general medical journals and to appraise the generalizability of the evidence. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: All RCTs in BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM from January 1, 2017 to September 30, 2017 were searched by hand, and data were extracted according to the benchmarking method. RESULTS: Hundred sixty-one RCTs were found; 67% assessed pharmacological therapy. The percentages of adequate documentation were patients' path before randomization 3% to 33% of trials; characteristics of the health care settings 0% to 75%; at least two comorbid conditions 25% to 50%; at least one measure was reported of functioning 42% to 54%, of behavioral factors 25% to 58%, of environmental factors 3% to 25%, and of inequity-related factors 28% to 68%; cointerventions 6% to 25%; and reasons for dropping out of follow-up 39% to 100%. CONCLUSION: Almost all RCTs showed deficiencies in description of patient selection and study setting and in reporting of patient characteristics related to functioning, comorbidities, and to behavioral, environmental, and inequity factors. The findings indicate that generalizability of this evidence may be limited. The benchmarking method can be used for planning and appraisal of clinical trials and systematic reviews.

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 — 69 citations exist upstream.

References

2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration 2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration 2010CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 2016Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 2017Socioeconomic status and the 25 × 25 risk factors as determinants of premature mortality: a multicohort study and meta-analysis of 1·7 million men and women 20152015 Updated Method Guideline for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Group 2016Changes in mortality inequalities over two decades: register based study of European countries 2011Building of the global movement for health equity: from Santiago to Rio and beyond

Cited by

2019Clinical replicability of rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials reported in main journals is inadequate 2020Blinded or Nonblinded Randomized Controlled Trials in Rehabilitation Research 2020Articles provided insufficient information to conduct an appropriate retrospective assessment of the pragmatic/explanatory features of medicine trials with the PRECIS-2 tool

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.