Trial reportTrials2011
Assessment of data quality in an international multi-centre randomised trial of coronary artery surgery.
Trial report in Trials, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundART is a multi-centre randomised trial of cardiac surgery which provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the data from a large number of centres from a variety of countries. We attempted to assess data quality, including recruitment rates, timeliness and completeness of the data obtained from the centres in different socio-economic strata.
methodsThe analysis was based on the 2-page CRF completed at the 6 week follow-up. CRF pages were categorised into "clean" (no edit query) and "dirty" (any incomplete, inconsistent or illegible data). The timelines were assessed on the basis of the time interval from the visit and receipt of complete CRF. Data quality was defined as the number of data queries (in percent) and time delay (in days) between visit and receipt of correct data. Analyses were stratified according to the World Bank definitions into: "Developing" countries (Poland, Brazil and India) and "Developed" (Italy, UK, Austria and Australia).
resultsThere were 18 centres in the "Developed" and 10 centres in the "Developing" countries. The rate of enrolment did not differ significantly by economic level ("Developing":4.1 persons/month, "Developed":3.7 persons/month). The time interval for the receipt of data was longer for "Developing" countries (median:37 days) compared to "Developed" ones (median:11 days) (p < 0.001). The median number of data queries was 23% in "Developed" countries compared to 19% in "Developing" ones (p = ns).
conclusionsIn this study we showed that data quality was comparable between centres from "Developed" and "Developing" countries. Data was received in a less timely fashion from Developing countries and appropriate systems should be instigated to minimize any delays. Close attention should be paid to the training of centres and to the central management of data quality.
trial registrationISRCTN46552265.
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.