TITLE

Quality of Prospective Controlled Randomized Trials

AUTHOR(S)
Cowan, James; Lozano-Calderón, Santiago; Ring, David
PUB. DATE
August 2007
SOURCE
Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, American Volume;Aug2007, Vol. 89-A Issue 8, p1693
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
Background: The Oxford Levels of Evidence are now routinely assigned at many orthopaedic journals. One disadvantage of this approach is that study designs with a higher level of evidence may be given greater weight than the overall quality of the study merits. In other words, there is no guarantee that research is scientifically valid simply because a more sophisticated study design was employed. The aim of this study was to review Level-I and II therapeutic studies on lateral epicondylitis to measure variation in quality among the highest-level study designs. Methods: Fifty-four prospective randomized therapeutic trials involving patients with lateral epicondylitis were evaluated by two independent reviewers according to the Oxford Levels of Evidence, a modification of the Coleman Methodology Score (a 0 to 100-point scale), and the revised CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) score. Results: The two reviewers were consistent in their use of the Oxford Levels of Evidence (κ = 0.73, p < 0.01), the modified Coleman Methodology Score (κ = 0.73; p < 0.01), and the CONSORT score (κ = 0.53; p < 0.01). Both reviewers rated the majority of studies as Level II (91% and 94%) and as unsatisfactory according to the Coleman Methodology Score (87% and 89%) and the CONSORT score (62% and 63%). Areas of deficiency included poor descriptions of recruitment (> 90% of the trials), power-level calculations (73%), randomization (58%), blinding (90%), and participant flow (50%) as well as inadequate follow-up, sample size, and blinding. Conclusions: The use of the gold-standard trial design, the prospective randomized therapeutic study (Level-I or II evidence), does not ensure quality research or reporting. Critical analysis of scientific work is important regardless of the study design. Clinical scientists should be familiar with the CONSORT criteria and adhere to them when reporting clinical trials.
ACCESSION #
26180954

 

Related Articles

  • The Dose-Response Effect of Medical Exercise Therapy on Impairment in Patients with Unilateral Longstanding Subacromial Pain. Østerås, Håvard; Torstensen, Tom Arild // Open Orthopaedics Journal;2010, Vol. 4, p1 

    Objectives: The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effect of medical exercise therapy in shoulder impingement patients, along with possible correlations between impairment variables. Study Design: A prospective unblended randomized clinical trial. Methods: Over four months, 61...

  • A marginalized pattern-mixture model for longitudinal binary data when nonresponse depends on unobserved responses. Garrett M. Fitzmaurice // Biostatistics;Apr2007, Vol. 8 Issue 2, p297 

    This paper proposes a method for modeling longitudinal binary data when nonresponse depends on unobserved responses. The proposed method presumes that the target of inference is the marginal distribution of the response at each occasion and its dependence on covariates, and can accommodate both...

  • Does a "Level I Evidence" rating imply high quality of reporting in orthopaedic randomised controlled trials? Poolman, Rudolf W.; Struijs, Peter A. A.; Krips, Rover; Sierevelt, Inger N.; Lutz, Kristina H.; Bhandari, Mohit // BMC Medical Research Methodology;2006, Vol. 6, p44 

    Background: The Levels of Evidence Rating System is widely believed to categorize studies by quality, with Level I studies representing the highest quality evidence. We aimed to determine the reporting quality of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) published in the most frequently cited general...

  • Conducting a clinical study: A guide for good research practice. Poolman, Rudolf W.; Hanson, Beate; Marti, Rene K.; Bhandari, Mohit // Indian Journal of Orthopaedics;Jan-Mar2007, Vol. 41 Issue 1, p27 

    The article presents an overview of the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) good clinical practice (GCP) guideline which focuses on issues relevant to orthopedics. It notes that the main principle of the guideline is the ethical conduct of a trial while patient safety serves as the...

  • Infant Orthopedics and Facial Appearance: A Randomized Clinical Trial (Dutchcleft). Prahl, Charlotte; Prahi-Andersen, Birte; Van 't Hof, Martin A.; Kuijpers-Jagtman, Anne M. // Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal;Nov2006, Vol. 43 Issue 6, p659 

    Objective: To study the effect of infant orthopedics on facial appearance. Design: Prospective two-arm randomized controlled trial in parallel with three participating academic cleft palate centers. Treatment allocation was concealed and performed by means of a computerized balanced allocation...

  • Randomization and concealment in surgical trials: a comparison between orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic randomized trials. Li, Patricia; Mah, Doug; Ki Lim; Sprague, Sheila; Bhandari, Mohit // Archives of Orthopaedic & Trauma Surgery;Feb2005, Vol. 125 Issue 1, p70 

    Compares orthopedic and non-orthopedic randomized trials to show how patients were randomized and whether treatment allocation was concealed. Methods of randomization and concealment; Quality of reporting of randomization and concealment of patient allocation; Fundamental strategies to reduce...

  • The American Orthopaedic Association Clinical Trials Curriculum. Diamond, Ivan R.; Murray, Camille; Bosse, Michael J.; Heckman, James D.; Mirza, Sohail K.; Peabody, Terrance D.; Saleh, Khaled J.; Swiontkowski, Marc F.; Wright, James G. // Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, American Volume;Apr2009, Vol. 91-A Issue 4, p1007 

    The article presents an overview of the rationale, objectives and design of a curriculum which was developed by the American Orthopedic Association in an effort to facilitate the advancement of clinical trials in orthopedics. An evaluation of the curriculum is offered. The importance of having...

  • Analysis of data query as parameter of quality. Khatawkar, Sonia; Bhatt, Arun; Shetty, Rutika; Dsilva, Patricia // Perspectives in Clinical Research;Jul-Sep2014, Vol. 5 Issue 3, p121 

    Introduction: Data query (DQ) rate per case record form (CRF) page is an index of quality of clinical trial data, which can be affected by the phase of clinical trial, the therapeutic area, and the country, where investigator site is located. Objective: To compare DQ rate per page by countries,...

  • Oncology survey finds optimism, cost concerns.  // Clinical Trials Administrator;Mar2010, Vol. 8 Issue 3, p33 

    The article discusses a survey sponsored by the U.S. Oncology which revealed that optimism was found for personalized medicine in clinical trials. The KJT Group conducted interviews of 299 oncologists, hematologists and clinical trial practitioners. Findings of the survey indicated that 57.5% of...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY AND SYSTEM

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics