SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2009
Quality of reporting internal and external validity data from randomized controlled trials evaluating stents for percutaneous coronary intervention.
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The research burden of randomized controlled trial participation: a systematic thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence.BMC medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Reporting of harm in randomized controlled trials evaluating stents for percutaneous coronary intervention.Trials · 2009Pooled it
- Assessment of Impact of Patient Recruitment Volume on Risk Profile, Outcomes, and Treatment Effect in a Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Acute Coronary Syndromes.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Trial
- Completeness of reporting of quality improvement studies in neonatology is inadequate: a systematic literature survey.BMJ open quality · 2021Article
- Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Enhancing primary reports of randomized controlled trials: Three most common challenges and suggested solutions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Review
- Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2018Review
- Article
- Assessment of the quality of reporting for treatment components in Cochrane reviews of acupuncture.BMJ open · 2014Article
- Improving the external validity of clinical trials: the case of multiple chronic conditions.Journal of comorbidity · 2013Article
- A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2013Article
- Resources for authors of reports of randomized trials: harnessing the wisdom of authors, editors, and readers.Trials · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStents are commonly used to treat patients with coronary artery disease. However, the quality of reporting internal and external validity data in published reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of stents has never been assessed.The objective of our study was to evaluate the quality of reporting internal and external validity data in published reports of RCTs assessing the stents for percutaneous coronary interventions.
methodsA systematic literature review was conducted. Reports of RCTs assessing stents for percutaneous coronary interventions indexed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and published between January 2003 and September 2008 were selected. A standardized abstraction form was used to extract data. All analyses were adjusted for the effect of clustering articles by journal.
results132 articles were analyzed. The generation of the allocation sequence was adequate in 58.3% of the reports; treatment allocation was concealed in 34.8%. Adequate blinding was reported in one-fifth of the reports. An intention-to-treat analysis was described in 79.5%. The main outcome was a surrogate angiographic endpoint in 47.0%. The volume of interventions per center was described in two reports. Operator expertise was described in five (3.8%) reports. The quality of reporting was better in journals with high impact factors and in journals endorsing the CONSORT statement.
conclusionThe current reporting of results of RCTs testing stents needs to be improved to allow readers to appraise the risk of bias and the applicability of the results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.