Empirical assessment suggests that existing evidence could be used more fully in designing randomized controlled trials
Abstract Background Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions. Less is known about how they are used to inform the design and reporting of RCTs. Methods A sample of RCTs published in leading medical journal...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of clinical epidemiology 2010-09, Vol.63 (9), p.983-991 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 991 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 9 |
| container_start_page | 983 |
| container_title | Journal of clinical epidemiology |
| container_volume | 63 |
| creator | Goudie, Alison C Sutton, Alexander J Jones, David R Donald, Alison |
| description | Abstract Background Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions. Less is known about how they are used to inform the design and reporting of RCTs. Methods A sample of RCTs published in leading medical journals in 2007 was assessed to establish whether authors considered previous trials in the design of their trial. An approach to calculate the sample size required for a significant pooled effect in an updated meta-analysis was applied to a subsample of the RCTs to illustrate the ways in which the results of an existing meta-analysis can be incorporated into the planning and reporting of new RCTs. Results Six of the 27 trials assessed (22%) reported the use of previous trial(s) for sample size calculations. Meta-analyses relating the results of the trial to previous research were cited in 37% (10 out of 27) of the report discussion sections. Previous evidence is formally incorporated into retrospective sample size calculations for three of the trials. Discussion/Conclusion Consulting previous research before embarking on a new trial and basing decisions about future research on the impact on an updated meta-analysis will make the reporting of research more coherent and the design of new RCTs more efficient. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.022 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_749020362</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S089543561000140X</els_id><sourcerecordid>749020362</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-1f9ae89b272671b46488b4de8ed12c4665e119394e4f16a3dd62b088872aa27c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkluLFDEQhRtR3HH1LywBEZ9mrFw6nX4RZVkvsOCDCr6FdFI9ZuzLmOpeHX-9aWbWhX3xqUL46lBV5xTFBYcNB65f7TY738UB93EjIH8C34AQD4oVN5VZl7XgD4sVmLpcK1nqs-IJ0Q6AV1CVj4szAWUllZGr4tdVv48petcxR4REPQ4To3m7RZqITd_dxPB3pCkOW4Y3MeDgkflx7gJrkM2EgfVjQtbOXXdgcWABKW6HBU9uCGMf_2TEj8OUxq7LzylF19HT4lGbCz471fPi67urL5cf1tef3n-8fHu99srAtOZt7dDUjaiErnijtDKmUQENBi680rpEzmtZK1Qt106GoEUDxphKOCcqL8-Ll0fdfRp_znkn20fy2HVuwHEmW6kaBEgtMvn8Hrkb5zTk4SwHKYWqqhIypY-UTyNRwtbuU-xdOmTILs7Ynb11xi7OWOA2O5MbL07yc9Nj-Nd2a0UGXpwAR9mONl_PR7rjJNRQapW5N0cO89luIiZLPi6uhJjQTzaM8f-zvL4nsVBLCH7gAelub0vCgv285GiJEYccIQXf5F-sFsWr</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1033247750</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Empirical assessment suggests that existing evidence could be used more fully in designing randomized controlled trials</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Goudie, Alison C ; Sutton, Alexander J ; Jones, David R ; Donald, Alison</creator><creatorcontrib>Goudie, Alison C ; Sutton, Alexander J ; Jones, David R ; Donald, Alison</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Background Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions. Less is known about how they are used to inform the design and reporting of RCTs. Methods A sample of RCTs published in leading medical journals in 2007 was assessed to establish whether authors considered previous trials in the design of their trial. An approach to calculate the sample size required for a significant pooled effect in an updated meta-analysis was applied to a subsample of the RCTs to illustrate the ways in which the results of an existing meta-analysis can be incorporated into the planning and reporting of new RCTs. Results Six of the 27 trials assessed (22%) reported the use of previous trial(s) for sample size calculations. Meta-analyses relating the results of the trial to previous research were cited in 37% (10 out of 27) of the report discussion sections. Previous evidence is formally incorporated into retrospective sample size calculations for three of the trials. Discussion/Conclusion Consulting previous research before embarking on a new trial and basing decisions about future research on the impact on an updated meta-analysis will make the reporting of research more coherent and the design of new RCTs more efficient.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0895-4356</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5921</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.022</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20573483</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Design ; Epidemiology ; Evidence-based medicine ; Evidence-Based Medicine - standards ; Humans ; Internal Medicine ; Intervention ; Medical Informatics Applications ; Medical sciences ; Meta-analysis ; Meta-Analysis as Topic ; Miscellaneous ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods ; RCT ; Research Design - standards ; Sample Size ; Study design ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2010-09, Vol.63 (9), p.983-991</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2010 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-1f9ae89b272671b46488b4de8ed12c4665e119394e4f16a3dd62b088872aa27c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-1f9ae89b272671b46488b4de8ed12c4665e119394e4f16a3dd62b088872aa27c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1033247750?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,27923,27924,45994,64384,64386,64388,72240</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=23090564$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20573483$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Goudie, Alison C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sutton, Alexander J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, David R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Donald, Alison</creatorcontrib><title>Empirical assessment suggests that existing evidence could be used more fully in designing randomized controlled trials</title><title>Journal of clinical epidemiology</title><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><description>Abstract Background Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions. Less is known about how they are used to inform the design and reporting of RCTs. Methods A sample of RCTs published in leading medical journals in 2007 was assessed to establish whether authors considered previous trials in the design of their trial. An approach to calculate the sample size required for a significant pooled effect in an updated meta-analysis was applied to a subsample of the RCTs to illustrate the ways in which the results of an existing meta-analysis can be incorporated into the planning and reporting of new RCTs. Results Six of the 27 trials assessed (22%) reported the use of previous trial(s) for sample size calculations. Meta-analyses relating the results of the trial to previous research were cited in 37% (10 out of 27) of the report discussion sections. Previous evidence is formally incorporated into retrospective sample size calculations for three of the trials. Discussion/Conclusion Consulting previous research before embarking on a new trial and basing decisions about future research on the impact on an updated meta-analysis will make the reporting of research more coherent and the design of new RCTs more efficient.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Evidence-based medicine</subject><subject>Evidence-Based Medicine - standards</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Medical Informatics Applications</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Meta-Analysis as Topic</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods</subject><subject>RCT</subject><subject>Research Design - standards</subject><subject>Sample Size</subject><subject>Study design</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>0895-4356</issn><issn>1878-5921</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkluLFDEQhRtR3HH1LywBEZ9mrFw6nX4RZVkvsOCDCr6FdFI9ZuzLmOpeHX-9aWbWhX3xqUL46lBV5xTFBYcNB65f7TY738UB93EjIH8C34AQD4oVN5VZl7XgD4sVmLpcK1nqs-IJ0Q6AV1CVj4szAWUllZGr4tdVv48petcxR4REPQ4To3m7RZqITd_dxPB3pCkOW4Y3MeDgkflx7gJrkM2EgfVjQtbOXXdgcWABKW6HBU9uCGMf_2TEj8OUxq7LzylF19HT4lGbCz471fPi67urL5cf1tef3n-8fHu99srAtOZt7dDUjaiErnijtDKmUQENBi680rpEzmtZK1Qt106GoEUDxphKOCcqL8-Ll0fdfRp_znkn20fy2HVuwHEmW6kaBEgtMvn8Hrkb5zTk4SwHKYWqqhIypY-UTyNRwtbuU-xdOmTILs7Ynb11xi7OWOA2O5MbL07yc9Nj-Nd2a0UGXpwAR9mONl_PR7rjJNRQapW5N0cO89luIiZLPi6uhJjQTzaM8f-zvL4nsVBLCH7gAelub0vCgv285GiJEYccIQXf5F-sFsWr</recordid><startdate>20100901</startdate><enddate>20100901</enddate><creator>Goudie, Alison C</creator><creator>Sutton, Alexander J</creator><creator>Jones, David R</creator><creator>Donald, Alison</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>IQODW</scope><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>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100901</creationdate><title>Empirical assessment suggests that existing evidence could be used more fully in designing randomized controlled trials</title><author>Goudie, Alison C ; Sutton, Alexander J ; Jones, David R ; Donald, Alison</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-1f9ae89b272671b46488b4de8ed12c4665e119394e4f16a3dd62b088872aa27c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Evidence-based medicine</topic><topic>Evidence-Based Medicine - standards</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Medical Informatics Applications</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Meta-Analysis as Topic</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods</topic><topic>RCT</topic><topic>Research Design - standards</topic><topic>Sample Size</topic><topic>Study design</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Goudie, Alison C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sutton, Alexander J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, David R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Donald, Alison</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Goudie, Alison C</au><au>Sutton, Alexander J</au><au>Jones, David R</au><au>Donald, Alison</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Empirical assessment suggests that existing evidence could be used more fully in designing randomized controlled trials</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2010-09-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>63</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>983</spage><epage>991</epage><pages>983-991</pages><issn>0895-4356</issn><eissn>1878-5921</eissn><abstract>Abstract Background Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions. Less is known about how they are used to inform the design and reporting of RCTs. Methods A sample of RCTs published in leading medical journals in 2007 was assessed to establish whether authors considered previous trials in the design of their trial. An approach to calculate the sample size required for a significant pooled effect in an updated meta-analysis was applied to a subsample of the RCTs to illustrate the ways in which the results of an existing meta-analysis can be incorporated into the planning and reporting of new RCTs. Results Six of the 27 trials assessed (22%) reported the use of previous trial(s) for sample size calculations. Meta-analyses relating the results of the trial to previous research were cited in 37% (10 out of 27) of the report discussion sections. Previous evidence is formally incorporated into retrospective sample size calculations for three of the trials. Discussion/Conclusion Consulting previous research before embarking on a new trial and basing decisions about future research on the impact on an updated meta-analysis will make the reporting of research more coherent and the design of new RCTs more efficient.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>20573483</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.022</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0895-4356 |
| ispartof | Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2010-09, Vol.63 (9), p.983-991 |
| issn | 0895-4356 1878-5921 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_749020362 |
| source | MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present); ProQuest Central UK/Ireland |
| subjects | Biological and medical sciences Design Epidemiology Evidence-based medicine Evidence-Based Medicine - standards Humans Internal Medicine Intervention Medical Informatics Applications Medical sciences Meta-analysis Meta-Analysis as Topic Miscellaneous Public health. Hygiene Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods RCT Research Design - standards Sample Size Study design Systematic review |
| title | Empirical assessment suggests that existing evidence could be used more fully in designing randomized controlled trials |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T14%3A41%3A10IST&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=Empirical%20assessment%20suggests%20that%20existing%20evidence%20could%20be%20used%20more%20fully%20in%20designing%20randomized%20controlled%20trials&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20epidemiology&rft.au=Goudie,%20Alison%20C&rft.date=2010-09-01&rft.volume=63&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=983&rft.epage=991&rft.pages=983-991&rft.issn=0895-4356&rft.eissn=1878-5921&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.022&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E749020362%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=1033247750&rft_id=info:pmid/20573483&rft_els_id=S089543561000140X&rfr_iscdi=true |