ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Methodological Quality and Risk of Bias Assessment of Cardiovascular Disease Research: Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in 2017.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Accuracy of Large Language Models in Risk-of-Bias Assessment Using Version 2 of the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomized Trials: Exploratory Feasibility Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Fragility in cardiovascular randomized controlled trials with primary continuous outcomes (2018-2022) from multi-perspectives assessment: a cross-sectional survey.Annals of medicine · 2024Article
- Change over Five Years in Important Measures of Methodological Quality and Reporting in Randomized Cardiovascular Clinical Trials.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: All randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are required to follow high methodological standards. In this study, we aimed to assess the methodological quality of published cardiovascular clinical research trials in a representative sample of RCTs published in 2017. Methods: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was used to identify cardiovascular clinical research trials with adult participants published in 2017. Overall, 250 (10%) RCTs were randomly selected from a total of 2,419 studies. Data on general trial characteristics were extracted and the risk of bias (RoB) was determined. Results: Overall, 86% of RCTs have reported at least one statistically significant result, with the primary outcome significant in 69%, treatment favored in 55%, and adverse events reported in 68%. Less than one-third (29%) of trials were overall low RoB, while the other two-thirds were rated unclear (40%) or with high RoB (31%). Sequence generation, allocation concealment, and selective reporting were the domains most often rated with high RoB. Drug trials were more likely to have low RoB than non-drug trials. Significant differences were found in RoB for the allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel between industry-funded and non-industry-funded trials, with industry-funded trials more often rated at low RoB. Conclusion: Almost two-thirds of RCTs in the field of cardiovascular disease (CVD) research, were at high or unclear RoB, indicating a need for more rigorous trial planning and conduct. Prospective trial registration is a factor predicting a lower risk of bias.
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.