Are current standards of reporting quality for clinical trials sufficient in addressing important sources of bias?

Edward J. Mills, Dieter Ayers, Roger Chou, Kristian Thorlund

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Determining the quality of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) is necessary for decision-makers to determine the believability and applicability of the trial findings. Issues that are likely to affect the utility of RCT evidence include issues of bias, random error and applicability. In this article we focus primarily on issues of bias and examine the evidence for whether reporting methodological items, including allocation concealment, sequence generation, and blinding of participants can be relied upon as evidence of bias. We present the findings of a systematic review of meta-epidemiological studies and a simulation study demonstrating that commonly examined sources of bias likely play little role in treatment exaggeration. We discuss other issues that may additionally influence trial outcomes including sample size, publication bias, and expertise of trialists. We conclude by discussing strategies to moderate the effect of known biases in assessing overall estimates of treatment effects.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2-7
Number of pages6
JournalContemporary Clinical Trials
Volume45
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 24 2015

Fingerprint

Randomized Controlled Trials
Clinical Trials
Publication Bias
Sample Size
Epidemiologic Studies

Keywords

  • Bias
  • Quality
  • Randomized clinical trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology (medical)
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Are current standards of reporting quality for clinical trials sufficient in addressing important sources of bias? / Mills, Edward J.; Ayers, Dieter; Chou, Roger; Thorlund, Kristian.

In: Contemporary Clinical Trials, Vol. 45, 24.04.2015, p. 2-7.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f2b671c163a74188b08f6c0b142ce9d2,
title = "Are current standards of reporting quality for clinical trials sufficient in addressing important sources of bias?",
abstract = "Determining the quality of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) is necessary for decision-makers to determine the believability and applicability of the trial findings. Issues that are likely to affect the utility of RCT evidence include issues of bias, random error and applicability. In this article we focus primarily on issues of bias and examine the evidence for whether reporting methodological items, including allocation concealment, sequence generation, and blinding of participants can be relied upon as evidence of bias. We present the findings of a systematic review of meta-epidemiological studies and a simulation study demonstrating that commonly examined sources of bias likely play little role in treatment exaggeration. We discuss other issues that may additionally influence trial outcomes including sample size, publication bias, and expertise of trialists. We conclude by discussing strategies to moderate the effect of known biases in assessing overall estimates of treatment effects.",
keywords = "Bias, Quality, Randomized clinical trials",
author = "Mills, {Edward J.} and Dieter Ayers and Roger Chou and Kristian Thorlund",
year = "2015",
month = "4",
day = "24",
doi = "10.1016/j.cct.2015.07.019",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "45",
pages = "2--7",
journal = "Contemporary Clinical Trials",
issn = "1551-7144",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are current standards of reporting quality for clinical trials sufficient in addressing important sources of bias?

AU - Mills, Edward J.

AU - Ayers, Dieter

AU - Chou, Roger

AU - Thorlund, Kristian

PY - 2015/4/24

Y1 - 2015/4/24

N2 - Determining the quality of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) is necessary for decision-makers to determine the believability and applicability of the trial findings. Issues that are likely to affect the utility of RCT evidence include issues of bias, random error and applicability. In this article we focus primarily on issues of bias and examine the evidence for whether reporting methodological items, including allocation concealment, sequence generation, and blinding of participants can be relied upon as evidence of bias. We present the findings of a systematic review of meta-epidemiological studies and a simulation study demonstrating that commonly examined sources of bias likely play little role in treatment exaggeration. We discuss other issues that may additionally influence trial outcomes including sample size, publication bias, and expertise of trialists. We conclude by discussing strategies to moderate the effect of known biases in assessing overall estimates of treatment effects.

AB - Determining the quality of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) is necessary for decision-makers to determine the believability and applicability of the trial findings. Issues that are likely to affect the utility of RCT evidence include issues of bias, random error and applicability. In this article we focus primarily on issues of bias and examine the evidence for whether reporting methodological items, including allocation concealment, sequence generation, and blinding of participants can be relied upon as evidence of bias. We present the findings of a systematic review of meta-epidemiological studies and a simulation study demonstrating that commonly examined sources of bias likely play little role in treatment exaggeration. We discuss other issues that may additionally influence trial outcomes including sample size, publication bias, and expertise of trialists. We conclude by discussing strategies to moderate the effect of known biases in assessing overall estimates of treatment effects.

KW - Bias

KW - Quality

KW - Randomized clinical trials

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84955188051&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84955188051&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cct.2015.07.019

DO - 10.1016/j.cct.2015.07.019

M3 - Article

C2 - 26232560

AN - SCOPUS:84955188051

VL - 45

SP - 2

EP - 7

JO - Contemporary Clinical Trials

JF - Contemporary Clinical Trials

SN - 1551-7144

ER -