Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=29531032
&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215
Enhancing primary reports of randomized controlled trials: Three most common
challenges and suggested solutions
#MMPMID29531032
Li G
; Bhatt M
; Wang M
; Mbuagbaw L
; Samaan Z
; Thabane L
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2018[Mar]; 115
(11
): 2595-2599
PMID29531032
show ga
Evidence from a well-designed randomized controlled trial (RCT) is generally
considered to be the gold standard that can inform clinical practice and guide
decision-making. However, several deficiencies in the reporting of RCTs have
frequently been identified, including incomplete, selective, and biased or
inconsistent reporting. Such suboptimal reporting may lead to irreproducible
results, substantial waste of resources, impaired study validity, erosion of
public trust in science, and a high risk of research misconduct. In this article,
we present an overview of the reporting of RCTs in the biomedical literature with
a focus on the three most common reporting problems: (i) lack of adherence to
reporting guidelines, (ii) inconsistencies between trial protocols or
registrations and full reports, and (iii) inconsistencies between abstracts and
their corresponding full reports. Unsatisfactory levels of adherence to
guidelines and frequent inconsistencies between protocols or registrations and
full reports, and between abstracts and full reports, were consistently found in
various biomedical research fields. A variety of factors were found to be
associated with these reporting challenges. Improved reporting can build public
trust and credibility of science, save resources, and enhance the ethical
integrity of research. Therefore, joint efforts from the various sectors of the
biomedical community (researchers, journal editors and reviewers, educators,
healthcare providers, and other research consumers) are needed to reduce and
reverse the current suboptimal state of RCT reporting in the literature.
|Humans
[MESH]
|Peer Review/standards
[MESH]
|Publications/*standards
[MESH]
|Quality Control
[MESH]
|Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods/*standards
[MESH]
free
free
free
