Inadequate description of placebo and sham controls in a systematic review of recent trials
Background Poorly described placebo/sham controls make it difficult to appraise active intervention benefits and harms. The 12‐item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was developed to improve the reporting of active interventions. The extent to which TIDieR has...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of clinical investigation 2019-11, Vol.49 (11), p.e13169-n/a |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | n/a |
---|---|
container_issue | 11 |
container_start_page | e13169 |
container_title | European journal of clinical investigation |
container_volume | 49 |
creator | Webster, Rebecca K. Howick, Jeremy Hoffmann, Tammy Macdonald, Helen Collins, Gary S. Rees, Jonathan L. Napadow, Vitaly Madigan, Claire Price, Amy Lamb, Sarah E. Bishop, Felicity L. Bokelmann, Klara Papanikitas, Andrew Roberts, Nia Evers, Andrea W.M. |
description | Background
Poorly described placebo/sham controls make it difficult to appraise active intervention benefits and harms. The 12‐item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was developed to improve the reporting of active interventions. The extent to which TIDieR has been used to improve description of placebo or sham control is not known.
Materials and methods
We systematically identified and examined all placebo/sham‐controlled randomised trials published in 2018 in the top six general medical journals. We reported how many of the TIDieR checklist items were used to describe the placebo/sham control(s). We supplemented this with a sample of 100 placebo/sham‐controlled trials from any journal and searched Google Scholar to identify placebo/sham‐controlled trials citing TIDieR.
Results
We identified 94 placebo/sham‐controlled trials published in the top journals in 2018. None reported using TIDieR, and none reported placebo or sham components completely. On average eight TIDieR items were addressed, with placebo/sham control name (100%) and when and how much was administered (97.9%) most commonly reported. Some items (rationale, 8.5%, whether there were modifications, 25.5%) were less often reported. In our sample of less well‐cited journals, reporting was poorer (average of six items) and followed a similar pattern. Since TIDieR’s first publication, six placebo‐controlled trials have cited it according to Google Scholar. Two of these used the checklist to describe placebo controls; neither one completely desribed the placebo intervention.
Conclusions
Placebo and sham controls are poorly described within randomised trials, and TIDieR is rarely used to guide these descriptions. We recommend developing guidelines to promote better descriptions of placebo/sham control components within clinical trials. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/eci.13169 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2290835054</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2290835054</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3889-8c4e26c70e58e9eb2d1f3c48a239820a234cd4417e522f64529e1fe66a6073483</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtKxDAYRoMoOl4WvoAE3OiimlvTZCmDlwHBje6EkEn_YqRtxqR1mLfxWXwyo6MuBLP5Nuc_hIPQISVnNL9zcP6Mcir1BppQLsuCcck20YQQKgqmK7aDdlN6JoQoytk22uG0pJqIaoIeZ72t4WW0A-Aakot-MfjQ49DgRWsdzAO2fY3Tk-2wC_0QQ5uw77HFaZUG6Ozg3ftbhFcPy8-jCA76AQ_R2zbto60mDxx87x56uLq8n94Ut3fXs-nFbeG4UrpQTgCTriJQKtAwZzVtuBPKMq4VI3mEq4WgFZSMNVKUTANtQEorScWF4nvoZO1dxPAyQhpM55ODtrU9hDEZxjRRvCSlyOjxH_Q5jLHPvzOMEy3LikuaqdM15WJIKUJjFtF3Nq4MJeYzucnJzVfyzB59G8d5B_Uv-dM4A-drYOlbWP1vMpfT2Vr5Aaa1ih4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2309657361</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Inadequate description of placebo and sham controls in a systematic review of recent trials</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Webster, Rebecca K. ; Howick, Jeremy ; Hoffmann, Tammy ; Macdonald, Helen ; Collins, Gary S. ; Rees, Jonathan L. ; Napadow, Vitaly ; Madigan, Claire ; Price, Amy ; Lamb, Sarah E. ; Bishop, Felicity L. ; Bokelmann, Klara ; Papanikitas, Andrew ; Roberts, Nia ; Evers, Andrea W.M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Webster, Rebecca K. ; Howick, Jeremy ; Hoffmann, Tammy ; Macdonald, Helen ; Collins, Gary S. ; Rees, Jonathan L. ; Napadow, Vitaly ; Madigan, Claire ; Price, Amy ; Lamb, Sarah E. ; Bishop, Felicity L. ; Bokelmann, Klara ; Papanikitas, Andrew ; Roberts, Nia ; Evers, Andrea W.M.</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Poorly described placebo/sham controls make it difficult to appraise active intervention benefits and harms. The 12‐item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was developed to improve the reporting of active interventions. The extent to which TIDieR has been used to improve description of placebo or sham control is not known.
Materials and methods
We systematically identified and examined all placebo/sham‐controlled randomised trials published in 2018 in the top six general medical journals. We reported how many of the TIDieR checklist items were used to describe the placebo/sham control(s). We supplemented this with a sample of 100 placebo/sham‐controlled trials from any journal and searched Google Scholar to identify placebo/sham‐controlled trials citing TIDieR.
Results
We identified 94 placebo/sham‐controlled trials published in the top journals in 2018. None reported using TIDieR, and none reported placebo or sham components completely. On average eight TIDieR items were addressed, with placebo/sham control name (100%) and when and how much was administered (97.9%) most commonly reported. Some items (rationale, 8.5%, whether there were modifications, 25.5%) were less often reported. In our sample of less well‐cited journals, reporting was poorer (average of six items) and followed a similar pattern. Since TIDieR’s first publication, six placebo‐controlled trials have cited it according to Google Scholar. Two of these used the checklist to describe placebo controls; neither one completely desribed the placebo intervention.
Conclusions
Placebo and sham controls are poorly described within randomised trials, and TIDieR is rarely used to guide these descriptions. We recommend developing guidelines to promote better descriptions of placebo/sham control components within clinical trials.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0014-2972</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2362</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/eci.13169</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31519047</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Checklist ; Clinical trials ; Control Groups ; Descriptions ; Humans ; Intervention ; placebo ; Placebos ; placebo‐controlled ; Randomization ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; reporting standards ; Research Report - standards ; Search engines ; sham ; TIDieR ; trial</subject><ispartof>European journal of clinical investigation, 2019-11, Vol.49 (11), p.e13169-n/a</ispartof><rights>2019 Stichting European Society for Clinical Investigation Journal Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2019 Stichting European Society for Clinical Investigation Journal Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 Stichting European Society for Clinical Investigation Journal Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3889-8c4e26c70e58e9eb2d1f3c48a239820a234cd4417e522f64529e1fe66a6073483</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3889-8c4e26c70e58e9eb2d1f3c48a239820a234cd4417e522f64529e1fe66a6073483</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2772-2316 ; 0000-0002-5136-1098 ; 0000-0003-0280-7206</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Feci.13169$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Feci.13169$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31519047$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Webster, Rebecca K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Howick, Jeremy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoffmann, Tammy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Macdonald, Helen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Collins, Gary S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rees, Jonathan L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Napadow, Vitaly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Madigan, Claire</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Price, Amy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lamb, Sarah E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bishop, Felicity L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bokelmann, Klara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Papanikitas, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Nia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evers, Andrea W.M.</creatorcontrib><title>Inadequate description of placebo and sham controls in a systematic review of recent trials</title><title>European journal of clinical investigation</title><addtitle>Eur J Clin Invest</addtitle><description>Background
Poorly described placebo/sham controls make it difficult to appraise active intervention benefits and harms. The 12‐item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was developed to improve the reporting of active interventions. The extent to which TIDieR has been used to improve description of placebo or sham control is not known.
Materials and methods
We systematically identified and examined all placebo/sham‐controlled randomised trials published in 2018 in the top six general medical journals. We reported how many of the TIDieR checklist items were used to describe the placebo/sham control(s). We supplemented this with a sample of 100 placebo/sham‐controlled trials from any journal and searched Google Scholar to identify placebo/sham‐controlled trials citing TIDieR.
Results
We identified 94 placebo/sham‐controlled trials published in the top journals in 2018. None reported using TIDieR, and none reported placebo or sham components completely. On average eight TIDieR items were addressed, with placebo/sham control name (100%) and when and how much was administered (97.9%) most commonly reported. Some items (rationale, 8.5%, whether there were modifications, 25.5%) were less often reported. In our sample of less well‐cited journals, reporting was poorer (average of six items) and followed a similar pattern. Since TIDieR’s first publication, six placebo‐controlled trials have cited it according to Google Scholar. Two of these used the checklist to describe placebo controls; neither one completely desribed the placebo intervention.
Conclusions
Placebo and sham controls are poorly described within randomised trials, and TIDieR is rarely used to guide these descriptions. We recommend developing guidelines to promote better descriptions of placebo/sham control components within clinical trials.</description><subject>Checklist</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Control Groups</subject><subject>Descriptions</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>placebo</subject><subject>Placebos</subject><subject>placebo‐controlled</subject><subject>Randomization</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>reporting standards</subject><subject>Research Report - standards</subject><subject>Search engines</subject><subject>sham</subject><subject>TIDieR</subject><subject>trial</subject><issn>0014-2972</issn><issn>1365-2362</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kMtKxDAYRoMoOl4WvoAE3OiimlvTZCmDlwHBje6EkEn_YqRtxqR1mLfxWXwyo6MuBLP5Nuc_hIPQISVnNL9zcP6Mcir1BppQLsuCcck20YQQKgqmK7aDdlN6JoQoytk22uG0pJqIaoIeZ72t4WW0A-Aakot-MfjQ49DgRWsdzAO2fY3Tk-2wC_0QQ5uw77HFaZUG6Ozg3ftbhFcPy8-jCA76AQ_R2zbto60mDxx87x56uLq8n94Ut3fXs-nFbeG4UrpQTgCTriJQKtAwZzVtuBPKMq4VI3mEq4WgFZSMNVKUTANtQEorScWF4nvoZO1dxPAyQhpM55ODtrU9hDEZxjRRvCSlyOjxH_Q5jLHPvzOMEy3LikuaqdM15WJIKUJjFtF3Nq4MJeYzucnJzVfyzB59G8d5B_Uv-dM4A-drYOlbWP1vMpfT2Vr5Aaa1ih4</recordid><startdate>201911</startdate><enddate>201911</enddate><creator>Webster, Rebecca K.</creator><creator>Howick, Jeremy</creator><creator>Hoffmann, Tammy</creator><creator>Macdonald, Helen</creator><creator>Collins, Gary S.</creator><creator>Rees, Jonathan L.</creator><creator>Napadow, Vitaly</creator><creator>Madigan, Claire</creator><creator>Price, Amy</creator><creator>Lamb, Sarah E.</creator><creator>Bishop, Felicity L.</creator><creator>Bokelmann, Klara</creator><creator>Papanikitas, Andrew</creator><creator>Roberts, Nia</creator><creator>Evers, Andrea W.M.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2772-2316</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5136-1098</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0280-7206</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201911</creationdate><title>Inadequate description of placebo and sham controls in a systematic review of recent trials</title><author>Webster, Rebecca K. ; Howick, Jeremy ; Hoffmann, Tammy ; Macdonald, Helen ; Collins, Gary S. ; Rees, Jonathan L. ; Napadow, Vitaly ; Madigan, Claire ; Price, Amy ; Lamb, Sarah E. ; Bishop, Felicity L. ; Bokelmann, Klara ; Papanikitas, Andrew ; Roberts, Nia ; Evers, Andrea W.M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3889-8c4e26c70e58e9eb2d1f3c48a239820a234cd4417e522f64529e1fe66a6073483</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Checklist</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Control Groups</topic><topic>Descriptions</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>placebo</topic><topic>Placebos</topic><topic>placebo‐controlled</topic><topic>Randomization</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>reporting standards</topic><topic>Research Report - standards</topic><topic>Search engines</topic><topic>sham</topic><topic>TIDieR</topic><topic>trial</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Webster, Rebecca K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Howick, Jeremy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoffmann, Tammy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Macdonald, Helen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Collins, Gary S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rees, Jonathan L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Napadow, Vitaly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Madigan, Claire</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Price, Amy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lamb, Sarah E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bishop, Felicity L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bokelmann, Klara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Papanikitas, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Nia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evers, Andrea W.M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European journal of clinical investigation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Webster, Rebecca K.</au><au>Howick, Jeremy</au><au>Hoffmann, Tammy</au><au>Macdonald, Helen</au><au>Collins, Gary S.</au><au>Rees, Jonathan L.</au><au>Napadow, Vitaly</au><au>Madigan, Claire</au><au>Price, Amy</au><au>Lamb, Sarah E.</au><au>Bishop, Felicity L.</au><au>Bokelmann, Klara</au><au>Papanikitas, Andrew</au><au>Roberts, Nia</au><au>Evers, Andrea W.M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Inadequate description of placebo and sham controls in a systematic review of recent trials</atitle><jtitle>European journal of clinical investigation</jtitle><addtitle>Eur J Clin Invest</addtitle><date>2019-11</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>e13169</spage><epage>n/a</epage><pages>e13169-n/a</pages><issn>0014-2972</issn><eissn>1365-2362</eissn><abstract>Background
Poorly described placebo/sham controls make it difficult to appraise active intervention benefits and harms. The 12‐item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was developed to improve the reporting of active interventions. The extent to which TIDieR has been used to improve description of placebo or sham control is not known.
Materials and methods
We systematically identified and examined all placebo/sham‐controlled randomised trials published in 2018 in the top six general medical journals. We reported how many of the TIDieR checklist items were used to describe the placebo/sham control(s). We supplemented this with a sample of 100 placebo/sham‐controlled trials from any journal and searched Google Scholar to identify placebo/sham‐controlled trials citing TIDieR.
Results
We identified 94 placebo/sham‐controlled trials published in the top journals in 2018. None reported using TIDieR, and none reported placebo or sham components completely. On average eight TIDieR items were addressed, with placebo/sham control name (100%) and when and how much was administered (97.9%) most commonly reported. Some items (rationale, 8.5%, whether there were modifications, 25.5%) were less often reported. In our sample of less well‐cited journals, reporting was poorer (average of six items) and followed a similar pattern. Since TIDieR’s first publication, six placebo‐controlled trials have cited it according to Google Scholar. Two of these used the checklist to describe placebo controls; neither one completely desribed the placebo intervention.
Conclusions
Placebo and sham controls are poorly described within randomised trials, and TIDieR is rarely used to guide these descriptions. We recommend developing guidelines to promote better descriptions of placebo/sham control components within clinical trials.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>31519047</pmid><doi>10.1111/eci.13169</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2772-2316</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5136-1098</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0280-7206</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0014-2972 |
ispartof | European journal of clinical investigation, 2019-11, Vol.49 (11), p.e13169-n/a |
issn | 0014-2972 1365-2362 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2290835054 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Checklist Clinical trials Control Groups Descriptions Humans Intervention placebo Placebos placebo‐controlled Randomization Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic reporting standards Research Report - standards Search engines sham TIDieR trial |
title | Inadequate description of placebo and sham controls in a systematic review of recent trials |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T20%3A16%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Inadequate%20description%20of%20placebo%20and%20sham%20controls%20in%20a%20systematic%C2%A0review%20of%20recent%20trials&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20clinical%20investigation&rft.au=Webster,%20Rebecca%20K.&rft.date=2019-11&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=e13169&rft.epage=n/a&rft.pages=e13169-n/a&rft.issn=0014-2972&rft.eissn=1365-2362&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/eci.13169&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2290835054%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2309657361&rft_id=info:pmid/31519047&rfr_iscdi=true |