4.6 Article

Reporting of methods was better in the Clinical Trials Registry-India than in Indian journal publications

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 66, 期 1, 页码 10-22

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.011

关键词

Randomized trials; CONSORT statement; Bias; Research design; Prospective trials registration; ICMJE

资金

  1. Indian Council of Medical Research
  2. Effective Healthcare Research Consortium, via the Department for International Development, UK, through the University of Liverpool
  3. Cochrane Schizophrenia Group, University of Nottingham

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: We sought to evaluate if editorial policies and the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) had improved since our 2004-05 survey of 151 RCTs in 65 Indian journals, and to compare reporting quality of protocols in the Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI). Study Design and Setting: An observational study of endorsement of Consolidated Standards for the Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requirements in the instructions to authors in Indian journals, and compliance with selected requirements in all RCTs published during 2007-08 vs. our previous survey and between all RCT protocols in the CTRI on August 31, 2010 and published RCTs from both surveys. Results: Journal policies endorsing the CONSORT statement (22/67, 33%) and ICMJE requirements (35/67, 52%) remained suboptimal, and only 4 of 13 CONSORT items were reported in more than 50% of the 145 RCTs assessed. Reporting of ethical issues had improved significantly, and that of methods addressing internal validity had not improved. Adequate methods were reported significantly more frequently in 768 protocols in the CTRI, than in the 296 published trials. Conclusion: The CTRI template facilitates the reporting of valid methods in registered trial protocols. The suboptimal compliance with CONSORT and ICMJE requirements in RCTs published in Indian journals reduces credibility in the reliability of their results. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据