ArticleThe oncologist2018
Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Reporting in the Treatment of Adult Patients with High-Grade Gliomas.
Article in The oncologist, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting according to the CONSORT statement in randomized controlled trials with glioblastoma patients.Neuro-oncology practice · 2021Article
- Unsatisfied Reporting Quality of Clinical Trials Evaluating Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in Cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Article
- A Review of Adherence and Predictors of Adherence to the CONSORT Statement in the Reporting of Tuberculosis Vaccine Trials.Vaccines · 2020Article
- Assessment of the reporting quality of RCTs for novel oral anticoagulants in venous thromboembolic disease based on the CONSORT statement.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the gold standard to objectively assess the effect of treatments. To help improve the quality of RCTs, experts established a list of recommendations, the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. In this study, we evaluated the implementation of the CONSORT Statement in the field of high-grade gliomas in adult patients and looked for criteria associated with higher quality of RCTs. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe searched all high-grade gliomas RCTs published in PubMed between January 1990 and December 2016. The quality of these RCTs was assessed by completing a modified CONSORT Score (CS).
resultsNinety-six published RCTs were identified. The median CS was 19.5 on a scale of 0-33. Items were not equally reported. Items regarding the method of randomization or the blinding were reported in less than 25% of RCTs. However, the CS has constantly improved over the years. Before the implementation of the CONSORT Statement in 1996, the median CS was 13, whereas it was 17 for the period 1996-2004 and 22 after 2005. A higher CS was observed when RCTs were published in a journal with an impact factor above 10 (
conclusionAlthough there has been a steady improvement in the CS over the years in the field of high-grade gliomas, a major effort must be made in the reporting methods for randomization and blinding. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study showed that the quality of reporting of randomized control trials (RCTs) concerning the treatment of high-grade gliomas is poor. Factors associated with a better quality of reports were identified and should be incorporated into the design of future RCTs. When clinicians read the results of RCTs, they should be aware of the possible inadequate reporting from these trials and take it into account for the management of their patients. This study identifies how RCTs can be improved in their reporting but also in their design, in order to advance care for patients with high-grade gliomas in the future.
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.