Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34176002›Full record

ReviewPrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2021

Common Methodological Problems in Randomized Controlled Trials of Preventive Interventions.

Christine M Steeger, Pamela R Buckley, Fred C Pampel, Charleen J Gust, Karl G Hill

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. AI-Augmented Clearinghouse to Facilitate Evidence-Based Decision-Making and Social Spending: a Conceptual Framework.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Racial and Ethnic Representation in Preventive Intervention Research: a Methodological Study.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Christine M Steeger *Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado Boulder, CO, 1440 15th 80309, St., Boulder, USA. christine.steeger@colorado.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-5898-0561
Pamela R Buckley *Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado Boulder, CO, 1440 15th 80309, St., Boulder, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8268-3524
Fred C PampelInstitute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado Boulder, CO, 1440 15th 80309, St., Boulder, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4172-9343
Charleen J GustInstitute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado Boulder, CO, 1440 15th 80309, St., Boulder, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8283-8330
Karl G HillInstitute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado Boulder, CO, 1440 15th 80309, St., Boulder, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8342-1561

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often considered the gold standard in evaluating whether intervention results are in line with causal claims of beneficial effects. However, given that poor design and incorrect analysis may lead to biased outcomes, simply employing an RCT is not enough to say an intervention "works." This paper applies a subset of the Society for Prevention Research (SPR) Standards of Evidence for Efficacy, Effectiveness, and Scale-up Research, with a focus on internal validity (making causal inferences) to determine the degree to which RCTs of preventive interventions are well-designed and analyzed, and whether authors provide a clear description of the methods used to report their study findings. We conducted a descriptive analysis of 851 RCTs published from 2010 to 2020 and reviewed by the Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development web-based registry of scientifically proven and scalable interventions. We used Blueprints' evaluation criteria that correspond to a subset of SPR's standards of evidence. Only 22% of the sample satisfied important criteria for minimizing biases that threaten internal validity. Overall, we identified an average of 1-2 methodological weaknesses per RCT. The most frequent sources of bias were problems related to baseline non-equivalence (i.e., differences between conditions at randomization) or differential attrition (i.e., differences between completers versus attritors or differences between study conditions that may compromise the randomization). Additionally, over half the sample (51%) had missing or incomplete tests to rule out these potential sources of bias. Most preventive intervention RCTs need improvement in rigor to permit causal inference claims that an intervention is effective. Researchers also must improve reporting of methods and results to fully assess methodological quality. These advancements will increase the usefulness of preventive interventions by ensuring the credibility and usability of RCT findings.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdolescentBiasHumansCONSORTInternal validityPreventive interventionsRandomized controlled trialRCTSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34176002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.