ReviewIntensive care medicine2013
Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials published in Intensive Care Medicine from 2001 to 2010.
Review in Intensive care medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Spin in Published Reports of Tinnitus Randomized Controlled Trials: Evidence of Overinterpretation of Results.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Pooled it
- Measuring and Analyzing Length of Stay in Critical Care Trials.Medical care · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Clinical trials in palliative care: a systematic review of their methodological characteristics and of the quality of their reporting.BMC palliative care · 2017Pooled it
- Characterizing Spin in Psychiatric Clinical Research Literature Using Large Language Models.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Research Letter: Characterizing spin in psychiatric clinical research literature using large language models.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Quality reporting of randomized controlled trials on SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure: a comprehensive assessment.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Linguistic spin in randomized controlled trials about age-related macular degeneration.Frontiers in epidemiology · 2022Article
- A multivariate model for successful publication of intensive care medicine randomized controlled trials in the highest impact factor journals: the SCOTI score.Annals of intensive care · 2021Article
- Abstracts for reports of randomised trials of COVID-19 interventions had low quality and high spin.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
- Spin in the reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews.Research integrity and peer review · 2019Article
- Comparison between a nurse-led weaning protocol and weaning based on physician's clinical judgment in tracheostomized critically ill patients: a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial.Annals of intensive care · 2018Article
- Article
- Findings from a novel approach to publication guideline revision: user road testing of a draft version of SQUIRE 2.0.BMJ quality & safety · 2016Article
- Interpretation of Results of Studies Evaluating an Intervention Highlighted in Google Health News: A Cross-Sectional Study of News.PloS one · 2015Article
- CONSORT item reporting quality in the top ten ranked journals of critical care medicine in 2011: a retrospective analysis.PloS one · 2015Article
- Outcomes and statistical power in adult critical care randomized trials.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2014Article
- Year in review in Intensive Care Medicine 2013: II. Sedation, invasive and noninvasive ventilation, airways, ARDS, ECMO, family satisfaction, end-of-life care, organ donation, informed consent, safety, hematological issues in critically ill patients.Intensive care medicine · 2014Article
- Old wine in new bottles: should we publish old data?Intensive care medicine · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in Intensive Care Medicine from 2001 to 2010, and to compare it with a previous review of RCTs published from 1975 to 2000.
methodsWe assessed the quality of reporting of randomization, blinding and participant flow, both individually and combined within the Jadad scale, and compared them with findings from our previous review. For RCTs published from 2001 to 2010, we also evaluated the frequency of distorted finding presentation (spin) and inflated predicted treatment effect (delta inflation).
resultsIn the 221 RCTs from 2001 to 2010, the sample size was significantly larger than in the older series, and there was a higher proportion of studies with negative findings. Reporting of the rationale for sample size estimation and allocation concealment increased significantly, but reporting of other important individual methodological components did not change substantially compared with the previous period and remained low. Among RCTs from 2001 to 2010, a spin strategy was used in 69 of 111 RCTs with statistically negative results, while delta inflation was present in 7 of 11 RCTs evaluating survival as a primary outcome. Papers with higher Jadad scores were cited more often than the others.
conclusionsQuality of reporting of RCTs published in Intensive Care Medicine has only partly improved over time, and spin and delta bias are of frequent occurrence. There is a need for stronger adherence to CONSORT recommendations, with special emphasis on accurate description of randomization and blindness, and correct reporting of statistically non-significant results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23743522What 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.