Transparent Reporting of Trials Is Essential

Altman, Douglas G
August 2013
American Journal of Gastroenterology;Aug2013, Vol. 108 Issue 8, p1231
Academic Journal
Reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) inform the care of future patients and are especially important to clinicians and systematic reviewers. Readers should satisfy themselves that the study methods were sound. Clinicians should consider the relevance to their own patients, both benefits and harms, and absolute as well as relative effects. Trial reports should provide a clear, transparent, and complete report of what was done and what was found. Unfortunately, bad reporting of RCTs is common, which has serious consequences for clinical practice, research, policy making, and ultimately for patients. RCT reports should adhere to the CONSORT Statement, a minimum set of items that should be addressed. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors should all work to ensure that research reports maximize the value derived from the cost and effort of conducting a trial.


Related Articles

  • High rate of flawed trials found in Chinese medical journals. Wise, Jacqui // BMJ: British Medical Journal (Overseas & Retired Doctors Edition;7/11/2009, Vol. 339 Issue 7712, p71 

    The article discusses research being done on the high rate of flawed randomised controlled trials published in Chinese medical journals. It reference a study by Taixing Wu and colleagues, published in the 2009 issue of "Trials." The researchers examined repots of randomised controlled trials of...

  • Role of Editorial and Peer Review Processes in Publication Bias: Analysis of Drug Trials Submitted to Eight Medical Journals. van Lent, Marlies; Overbeke, John; Out, Henk Jan // PLoS ONE;Aug2014, Vol. 9 Issue 8, p1 

    Background: Publication bias is generally ascribed to authors and sponsors failing to submit studies with negative results, but may also occur after submission. We evaluated whether submitted manuscripts on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with drugs are more likely to be accepted if they...

  • Use of Condition-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials among Patients with Wrist Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review. McPhail, Steven M.; Bagraith, Karl S.; Schippers, Mandy; Wells, Paula J.; Hatton, Anna // Advances in Orthopedics;2012, p1 

    Background. This paper aimed to identify condition-specific patient-reported outcome measures used in clinical trials among people with wrist osteoarthritis and summarise empirical peer-reviewed evidence supporting their reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change. Methods. A systematic...

  • Is peer review worth saving? Weiss, Gail Garfinkel // Medical Economics;2/18/2005, Vol. 82 Issue 4, p46 

    Identifies the importance of peer review in medical practice. Promotion of quality care by encouraging doctors to report incompetent and unethical colleagues; Consideration of hospital disciplinary mechanism; Organization of peer review due to judgment of differences or personality issues.

  • Do We Need Evidence for Everything? Hunter, David G. // American Orthoptic Journal;2010, Vol. 60, p59 

    There is no randomized, controlled trial (RCT) supporting the contention that evidence-based medicine is beneficial, and "evidence" is more than the information that can be obtained from RCTs. Systematic reviews have severe limitations of scope and reach, and RCTs can lead to false or...

  • The James Lind Initiative. Chalmers, Iain // Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine;Dec2003, Vol. 96 Issue 12, p575 

    The article reflects on the author's view on the James Lind Initiative, which was established to promote better controlled trials because to improve healthcare by emphasizing certain key principles. In addition, all controlled trials should be designed in the light of systematic reviews of what...

  • Do the CONSORT and STRICTA Checklists Improve the Reporting Quality of Acupuncture and Moxibustion Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Chinese Journals? A Systematic Review and Analysis of Trends. Ma, Bin; Chen, Zhi-min; Xu, Jia-ke; Wang, Ya-nan; Chen, Kuang-yang; Ke, Fa-yong; Niu, Jun-qiang; Li, Li; Huang, Cheng-ben; Zheng, Jian-xun; Yang, Jia-hui; Zhu, Qian-ge; Wang, Ya-ping // PLoS ONE;1/25/2016, Vol. 11 Issue 1, p1 

    Background: We investigated whether there had been an improvement in the quality of reporting for randomised controlled trials of acupuncture and moxibustion published in Chinese journals. We compared the compliance rate for the quality of reporting following the publication of both the STRICTA...

  • Researchers, like politicians, use "spin" in presenting results. Chew, Mabel // BMJ: British Medical Journal (Overseas & Retired Doctors Edition;9/19/2009, Vol. 339 Issue 7722, p652 

    The article reports on two presentations at the Sixth International Congress of Peer Review and Biomedical Publication in Vancouver, British Columbia which showed that researchers, like politicians, use spin in presenting results. Isabelle Boutron and colleagues define spin as a way to report...

  • A systematic review of the use of an expertise-based randomised controlled trial design. Cook, Jonathan A.; Elders, Andrew; Boachie, Charles; Bassinga, Ted; Fraser, Cynthia; Altman, Doug G.; Boutron, Isabelle; Ramsay, Craig R.; MacLennan, Graeme S. // Trials;2015, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p1 

    Background: Under a conventional two-arm randomised trial design, participants are allocated to an intervention and participating health professionals are expected to deliver both interventions. However, health professionals often have differing levels of expertise in a skill-based interventions...


Read the Article


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

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics