PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

D Moher

Publications and source records attributed to D Moher.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2001

Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation.

CONTEXT: The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To date, a paucity of data exists regarding whether it has achieved this goal. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether use of the CONSORT statement is associated with improvement in the quality of reports of RCTs. DESIGN AND SETTING: Comparative before-and-after evaluation in which reports of RCTs published in 1994 (pre-CONSORT) were compared with RCT reports from the same journals published in 1998 (post-CONSORT). We included 211 reports from BMJ, JAMA, and The Lancet (journals that adopted CONSORT) as well as The New England Journal of Medicine (a journal that did not adopt CONSORT and was used as a comparator). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of CONSORT items included in a report, frequency of unclear reporting of allocation concealment, and overall trial quality score based on the Jadad scale, a 5-point quality assessment instrument. RESULTS: Compared with 1994, the number of CONSORT checklist items in reports of RCTs increased in all 4 journals in 1998, and this increase was statistically significant for the 3 adopter journals (pre-CONSORT, 23.4; mean change, 3.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-5.3). The frequency of unclear reporting of allocation concealment decreased for each of the 4 journals, and this change was statistically significant for adopters (pre-CONSORT, 61%; mean change, -22%; 95% CI, -38% to -6%). Similarly, 3 of the 4 journals showed an improvement in the quality score for reports of RCTs, and this increase was statistically significant for adopter journals overall (pre-CONSORT, 2.7; mean change, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8). CONCLUSION: Use of the CONSORT statement is associated with improvements in the quality of reports of RCTs.

Publishing↗
PubMed2001

The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials.

To comprehend the results of a randomized, controlled trial (RCT), readers must understand its design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation. That goal can be achieved only through complete transparency from authors. Despite several decades of educational efforts, the reporting of RCTs needs improvement. Investigators and editors developed the original CONSORT (Con solidated S tandards o f R eporting T rials) statement to help authors improve reporting by using a checklist and flow diagram. The revised CONSORT statement presented in this paper incorporates new evidence and addresses some criticisms of the original statement. The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. The revised checklist includes 22 items selected because empirical evidence indicates that not reporting the information is associated with biased estimates of treatment effect or because the information is essential to judge the reliability or relevance of the findings. We intended the flow diagram to depict the passage of participants through an RCT. The revised flow diagram depicts information from four stages of a trial (enrollment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and analysis). The diagram explicitly includes the number of participants, for each intervention group, that are included in the primary data analysis. Inclusion of these numbers allows the reader to judge whether the authors have performed an intention-to-treat analysis. In sum, the CONSORT statement is intended to improve the reporting of an RCT, enabling readers to understand a trial's conduct and to assess the validity of its results.

Algorithms↗
PubMed2001

The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration.

Overwhelming evidence now indicates that the quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) is less than optimal. Recent methodologic analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which boast the elimination of systematic error as their primary hallmark. Systematic error in RCTs reflects poor science, and poor science threatens proper ethical standards. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Con solidated S tandards o f R eporting T rials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have adopted the CONSORT statement. The CONSORT statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs by providing guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of their trials. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For most items, at least one published example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies are provided. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT statement, this explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated Web site ( http://www.consort-statement.org ) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomized trials. Throughout the text, terms marked with an asterisk are defined at end of text.

Algorithms↗
PubMed2001

The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials.

To comprehend the results of a randomised controlled trial (RCT), readers must understand its design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation. That goal can be achieved only through total transparency from authors. Despite several decades of educational efforts, the reporting of RCTs needs improvement. Investigators and editors developed the original CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to help authors improve reporting by use of a checklist and flow diagram. The revised CONSORT statement presented here incorporates new evidence and addresses some criticisms of the original statement. The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. The revised checklist includes 22 items selected because empirical evidence indicates that not reporting this information is associated with biased estimates of treatment effect, or because the information is essential to judge the reliability or relevance of the findings. We intended the flow diagram to depict the passage of participants through an RCT. The revised flow diagram depicts information from four stages of a trial (enrollment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and analysis). The diagram explicitly shows the number of participants, for each intervention group, included in the primary data analysis. Inclusion of these numbers allows the reader to judge whether the authors have done an intention-to-treat analysis. In sum, the CONSORT statement is intended to improve the reporting of an RCT, enabling readers to understand a trial's conduct and to assess the validity of its results.

Humans↗
PubMed2001

Is there a "best" way to detect and minimize publication bias? An empirical evaluation.

Using 14 meta-analyses that included both published (n = 199) and unpublished (n = 50) randomized trials, we evaluated the utility of different analytical approaches to detect, assess robustness, and minimize publication bias in meta-analysis. The rank correlation and graphical tests indicated funnel plot asymmetry in 3 and 7 of the 14 meta-analyses, respectively. The file drawer number estimates using Iyengar-Greenhouse method were between 1.5 and 4.7 times smaller compared to Rosenthal's estimates. The median difference between the Trim and Fill estimates and the actual number of missing studies was 1 (range -4, 6). Weighted estimation methods adjusted for publication bias and provided estimates of intervention effect close to the reference standard, on average. We showed there are differences in the conclusions one would reach clinically based on the different analytical approaches dealing with publication bias. Our results also suggest that the appropriate use of these methods improves the reliability and accuracy of meta-analysis.

Humans↗
PubMed2001

Propofol vs midazolam for ICU sedation : a Canadian multicenter randomized trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine whether sedation with propofol would lead to shorter times to tracheal extubation and ICU length of stay than sedation with midazolam. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, open label. SETTING: Four academic tertiary-care ICUs in Canada. PATIENTS: Critically ill patients requiring continuous sedation while receiving mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: Random allocation by predicted requirement for mechanical ventilation (short sedation stratum, < 24 h; medium sedation stratum, > or = 24 and < 72 h; and long sedation stratum, > or = 72 h) to sedation regimens utilizing propofol or midazolam. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Using an intention-to-treat analysis, patients randomized to receive propofol in the short sedation stratum (propofol, 21 patients; midazolam, 26 patients) and the long sedation stratum (propofol, 4 patients; midazolam, 10 patients) were extubated earlier (short sedation stratum: propofol, 5.6 h; midazolam, 11.9 h; long sedation stratum: propofol, 8.4 h; midazolam, 46.8 h; p < 0.05). Pooled results showed that patients treated with propofol (n = 46) were extubated earlier than those treated with midazolam (n = 53) (6.7 vs 24.7 h, respectively; p < 0.05) following discontinuation of the sedation but were not discharged from ICU earlier (94.0 vs 63.7 h, respectively; p = 0.26). Propofol-treated patients spent a larger percentage of time at the target Ramsay sedation level than midazolam-treated patients (60.2% vs 44.0%, respectively; p < 0.05). Using a treatment-received analysis, propofol sedation either did not differ from midazolam sedation in time to tracheal extubation or ICU discharge (sedation duration, < 24 h) or was associated with earlier tracheal extubation but longer time to ICU discharge (sedation duration, > or = 24 h, < 72 h, or > or = 72 h). CONCLUSIONS: The use of propofol sedation allowed for more rapid tracheal extubation than when midazolam sedation was employed. This did not result in earlier ICU discharge.

Aged↗
PubMed2001

The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials.

To comprehend the results of a randomized, controlled trial (RCT), readers must understand its design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation. That goal can be achieved only through complete transparency from authors. Despite several decades of educational efforts, the reporting of RCTs needs improvement. Investigators and editors developed the original CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to help authors improve reporting by using a checklist and flow diagram. The revised CONSORT statement presented in this paper incorporates new evidence and addresses some criticisms of the original statement. The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. The revised checklist includes 22 items selected because empirical evidence indicates that not reporting the information is associated with biased estimates of treatment effect or because the information is essential to judge the reliability or relevance of the findings. We intended the flow diagram to depict the passage of participants through an RCT. The revised flow diagram depicts information from four stages of trial (enrollment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and analysis). The diagram explicitly includes the number of participants, for each intervention group, that are included in the primary data analysis. Inclusion of these numbers allows the reader to judge whether the authors have performed an intention-to-treat analysis. In sum, the CONSORT statement is intended to improve the reporting of an RCT, enabling readers to understand a trial's conduct and to assess the validity of its results.

Humans↗
PubMed2000

Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses?

BACKGROUND: The inclusion of only a subset of all available evidence in a meta-analysis may introduce biases and threaten its validity; this is particularly likely if the subset of included studies differ from those not included, which may be the case for published and grey literature (unpublished studies, with limited distribution). We set out to examine whether exclusion of grey literature, compared with its inclusion in meta-analysis, provides different estimates of the effectiveness of interventions assessed in randomised trials. METHODS: From a random sample of 135 meta-analyses, we identified and retrieved 33 publications that included both grey and published primary studies. The 33 publications contributed 41 separate meta-analyses from several disease areas. General characteristics of the meta-analyses and associated studies and outcome data at the trial level were collected. We explored the effects of the inclusion of grey literature on the quantitative results using logistic-regression analyses. FINDINGS: 33% of the meta-analyses were found to include some form of grey literature. The grey literature, when included, accounts for between 4.5% and 75% of the studies in a meta-analysis. On average, published work, compared with grey literature, yielded significantly larger estimates of the intervention effect by 15% (ratio of odds ratios=1.15 [95% CI 1.04-1.28]). Excluding abstracts from the analysis further compounded the exaggeration (1.33 [1.10-1.60]). INTERPRETATION: The exclusion of grey literature from meta-analyses can lead to exaggerated estimates of intervention effectiveness. In general, meta-analysts should attempt to identify, retrieve, and include all reports, grey and published, that meet predefined inclusion criteria.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2000

Evaluating the benefits of antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent urinary tract infections in children: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The recurrence rate for urinary tract infections in children is estimated at between 30% and 40%. The use of low doses of antibiotics as prophylaxis for recurrent urinary tract infections is common clinical practice. However, prolonged antimicrobial therapy has the potential to contribute to problems of bacterial resistance and antimicrobial side effects. The aim of this review was to systematically examine the available evidence for the effectiveness of this intervention. METHODS: We conducted a literature search of 3 electronic databases for the period 1966 to 1999. We also searched bibliographies from conference proceedings and contacted content experts to ensure completeness of our database. Each trial was evaluated on the basis of the following inclusion criteria: target population (children), intervention (antibiotic v. no antibiotic), outcome (number of urinary tract infections) and study design (randomized controlled trial). Quality was assessed for the studies that met these criteria. RESULTS: Most of the studies identified were case series and cohort studies. Only 6 randomized trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All were of low quality (median 2, range 0 to 2 [maximum quality score 5]). Three trials dealt with children who had anatomically normal urinary tracts, and three included children with neurogenic bladder. The rate of infections for patients with normal urinary tracts ranged from 0 to 4.0 per 10 patient-years for the treatment groups and from 4.0 to 16.7 for the control groups. The recurrence rates for patients with neurogenic bladders in 2 trials were 2.9 and 17.1 per 10 patient-years for the treatment groups and 1.5 and 33.0 for the control groups. INTERPRETATION: The available evidence for using antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent urinary tract infection in children with normal urinary tracts or neurogenic bladder is of low quality. This suggests that the magnitude of any benefit should at best be questioned. The surprising lack of data for children with reflux is of concern. Well-designed trials are needed to optimize the use of antimicrobials in children with recurrent urinary tract infection.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗
PubMed2000

Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

OBJECTIVE: Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. EVIDENCE: We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. CONSENSUS PROCESS: From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.

Epidemiology↗
PubMed2000

Folic acid and folinic acid for reducing side effects in patients receiving methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of folic acid and folinic acid in reducing the mucosal and gastrointestinal (GI) and haematologic side effects of low-dose of Methotrexate (MTX) in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) and to determine whether or not folate supplementation alters MTX efficacy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial's Register (CCTR), the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Specialized Register and Medline up to and including June 1999, using the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Collaboration (Dickersin 1994). We also handsearched the following: (i) bibliographic references; (ii) current contents of the last 6 months; (iii) abstracts of the rheumatology meetings; and (iv) all issues of four journals; Journal of Rheumatology, Arthritis & Rheumatism, Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, and British Journal of Rheumatology. All languages were included. Principal investigators were also contacted in order to look for unpublished literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected all double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials (RCTs), in which adult RA patients were treated with a low dose of MTX (<20 mg / week) concurrently with folate supplementation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two observers extracted the data and assessed the quality of the trials. (BS, Z0) The overall treatment effect across trials was calculated using a fixed effect model. Disease activity was evaluated using standardized mean differences to ensure comparability across outcome measures. Results are presented with 95% Confidence Inervals (95% CI). Subgroup analyses were conducted evaluating different doses and sensitivity analysis looking at the quality of the trials. Publication bias was assessed with an inverted funnel plot technique. Heterogeneity of the trials was measured using a standard chi square test. Costs per month in different countries were compared. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 12 trials retrieved, 7 met the inclusion criteria. The total sample included 307 patients, of which 147 were treated with folate supplementation, 80 patients with folinic acid and 67 patients with folic acid. A 79% reduction in mucosal and GI side effects was observed for folic acid [OR = 0.21 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.44)]. For folinic acid, a clinically but non-statistically significant reduction of 43% was found [OR = 0. 57 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.15)]. No major differences were observed between low and high doses of folic or folinic acid. Haematologic side effects could not be analyzed, since details of each haematologic side effect by patients were not provided. No consistent differences in disease activity parameters were observed when comparing placebo and folic or folinic acid at low or high doses, although patients on high dose folinic acid had an increase in the number of tender joints, but not swollen joints. Large differences in costs across countries were found, but folinic acid was more expensive in all. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The results support the protective effect of folate supplementation in reducing MTX side effects related to the oral and GI systems. We could not determine if folic was different from folinic acid. Therefore, for folinic acid to be considered cost-effective it must be found more effective than folic acid at reducing MTX side effects.

Antirheumatic Agents↗
PubMed2000

Glucocorticoids for croup.

BACKGROUND: Since the last meta-analysis in 1989, a number of randomised trials on the benefit of glucocorticoids have been published, resulting in an increasing interest in the use of glucocorticoids to treat outpatients with croup. The objective of this review was to provide evidence to guide clinicians in their treatment of patients with croup, to examine the effectiveness of glucocorticoids in these patients, and to identify areas of uncertainty for future research. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of glucocorticoids for children with croup. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 1997) and Excerpta Medica/EMBASE (January 1974 to August 1997). We also contacted (by mail) authors of identified croup trials published in the last five years to inquire about other trials, published or unpublished. SELECTION CRITERIA: Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that examine the effectiveness of glucocorticoid treatment in children with croup. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted using a structured form, which captured patient status (inpatient or outpatient), intervention and control, with the name of the drug, route of administration and dose. Data were also collected on the primary outcome measures comprised of a clinical croup score at baseline (as well as any other subsequent assessment times), length of stay (hours), patients status improved (yes/no), and use of co-interventions. The quality of the trials was assessed using empirically derived items that involved scales and components. Two researchers (TPK, MA) then selected studies as being potentially relevant based on a review of the titles and abstracts, if available. The complete text of these studies was then retrieved. All studies that had been retrieved were reviewed independently by two reviewers (AS, TPK). Data were extracted by one reviewer (MA) and checked for accuracy by a second reviewer (TPK). Two observers independently assessed quality (MA, JK), and inter rater agreement was measured by the intra class correlation. Differences were resolved by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were deemed relevant for inclusion (N=2221). Glucocorticoid treatment was associated with an improvement in the croup severity score at 6 hours with an effect size of -1.0 (95% confidence interval -1.5 to -0.6) and at 12 hours -1.0 (-1.6 to -0. 4); at 24 hours this improvement was no longer significant (-1.0, -2. 0 to 0.1). There was a decrease in the number of adrenaline treatments needed in children treated with glucocorticoids: a decrease of 9% (95% confidence interval 2 to 16%) among those treated with budesonide and of 12% (4 to 20%) among those treated with dexamethasone. There was also a decrease in the length of time spent in accident and emergency (-11 hours, 95% confidence interval -18 to 4 hours), and for inpatients hospital stay was reduced by 16 hours (-31 to 1 hour). Publication bias seems to play a part in these results. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Dexamethasone and budesonide are effective in relieving the symptoms of croup as early as 6 hours after treatment. Fewer co-interventions are used and the length of time spent in hospital is decreased in patients treated with glucocorticoids.

Croup↗
PubMed2000

What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses?

Including only a portion of all available evidence may introduce systematic errors into the meta-analytic process and threaten its validity. We set out to examine whether language restricted meta-analyses, compared to language inclusive meta-analyses, provide different estimates of the effectiveness of interventions evaluated in randomized trials. We identified and retrieved all 79 meta-analyses from several disease areas in which explicit eligibility criteria regarding trial selection were reported. General characteristics and quality of reporting of the meta-analyses were assessed using a validated instrument. We explored the effects of language of publication of the randomized trials on the quantitative results using logistic regression analyses. Language restricted meta-analyses, compared to language inclusive meta-analyses, did not differ with respect to the estimate of benefit of the effectiveness of an intervention (ROR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.81-1.17). These results were also robust after a series of sensitivity analyses. This study provides no evidence that language restricted meta-analyses lead to biased estimates of intervention effectiveness. We encourage others to replicate this study using different sampling frames, clinical topics and interventions.

Humans↗
PubMed2000

Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. QUOROM Group.

BACKGROUND: The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) conference was convened to address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses of clinical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: The QUOROM group consisted of 30 clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, statisticians, editors, and researchers. In conference, the group was asked to identify items they thought should be included in a checklist of standards. Whenever possible, checklist items were guided by research evidence suggesting that failure to adhere to the item proposed could lead to biased results. A modified Delphi technique was used in assessing candidate items. FINDINGS: The conference resulted in the QUOROM statement, a checklist, and a flow diagram. The checklist describes our preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a report of a meta-analysis. It is organised into 21 headings and subheadings regarding searches, selection, validity assessment, data abstraction, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis, and in the results with 'trial flow', study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis; research documentation was identified for eight of the 18 items. The flow diagram provides information about both the numbers of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for exclusion of trials. INTERPRETATION: We hope this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta-analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.

Data Collection↗
PubMed2000

Pharmacological management of intermittent claudication: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Intermittent claudication, a symptom of atherosclerosis in the large vessels of the lower limbs, greatly affects patient mobility and quality of life. Medical therapy for a moderate form of this condition includes vasodilators, antiplatelet agents and alternative treatments such as ginkgo biloba.A meta-analysis of results from 52 trials (including 5088 patients) was conducted for all current medical therapies for intermittent claudication. After 24 weeks, some of the medical therapies were found to be more effective than placebo for the primary end-points of either pain-free walking distance or maximum walking distance. Vasodilators presented the best results in walking distance. Pentoxifylline offered better results than naftidrofuryl, although the treatment benefit, measured in additional metres walked with treatment than without, was modest. Antiplatelets, ginkgo biloba and levocarnitine were slightly more effective than placebo, although the treatment benefit was of limited clinical importance. On average, patients walked 60m further with therapy than without, and only about half of that added distance was pain-free. Very little consistent information was available for other clinical end-points, such as overall mortality and adverse effects. These data suggest that some of the medical therapy, pentoxifylline in particular, can only modestly increase functional status in patients with moderate intermittent claudication. There is a need for uniformity in research design and reporting of trials. A future trial comparing medical therapy with physical therapy is indicated.

Humans↗
PubMed1999

The medical review article revisited: has the science improved?

BACKGROUND: The validity of a review depends on its methodologic quality. OBJECTIVE: To determine the methodologic quality of recently published review articles. DESIGN: Critical appraisal. SETTING: All reviews of clinical topics published in six general medical journals in 1996. MEASUREMENTS: Explicit criteria that have been published and validated were used. RESULTS: Of 158 review articles, only 2 satisfied all 10 methodologic criteria (median number of criteria satisfied, 1). Less than a quarter of the articles described how evidence was identified, evaluated, or integrated; 34% addressed a focused clinical question; and 39% identified gaps in existing knowledge. Of the 111 reviews that made treatment recommendations, 48% provided an estimate of the magnitude of potential benefits (and 34%, the potential adverse effects) of the treatment options, 45% cited randomized clinical trials to support their recommendations, and only 6% made any reference to costs. CONCLUSIONS: The methodologic quality of clinical review articles is highly variable, and many of these articles do not specify systematic methods.

Bibliometrics↗
PubMed1999

Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) conference was convened to address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses of clinical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: The QUOROM group consisted of 30 clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, statisticians, editors, and researchers. In conference, the group was asked to identify items they thought should be included in a checklist of standards. Whenever possible, checklist items were guided by research evidence suggesting that failure to adhere to the item proposed could lead to biased results. A modified Delphi technique was used in assessing candidate items. FINDINGS: The conference resulted in the QUOROM statement, a checklist, and a flow diagram. The checklist describes our preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a report of a meta-analysis. It is organised into 21 headings and subheadings regarding searches, selection, validity assessment, data abstraction, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis, and in the results with "trial flow", study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis; research documentation was identified for eight of the 18 items. The flow diagram provides information about both the numbers of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for exclusion of trials. INTERPRETATION: We hope this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta-analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.

Authorship↗