FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 306:1332-1337 June 3, 1982 Number 22 Next

	Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited PubMed Citation

Abstract

A clinical trial cannot be adequately interpreted without information about the methods used in the design of the study and the analysis of the results. To determine the frequency of reporting what we consider 11 important aspects of design and analysis, we surveyed all 67 clinical trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, and the British Medical Journal from July through December 1979 and in the Journal of the American Medical Association from July 1979 through June 1980. Of all 11 items in the 67 trials published in all four journals, 56 per cent were clearly reported, 10 per cent were ambiguously mentioned, and 34 per cent were not reported at all. At least 80 per cent of the 67 trials reported information about statistical analyses, statistical methods used, and random allocation of subjects, yet only 19 per cent reported the method of randomization. Loss to follow-up was discussed in 79 per cent of the articles, treatment complications in 64 per cent, and admission of subjects before allocation in 57 per cent, but eligibility criteria for admission to the trial appeared in only 37 per cent. Although information about whether patients were blind to treatment was given in 55 per cent, information about whether there was blind assessment of outcome was reported in only 30 per cent. The statistical power of the trial to detect treatment effects was discussed in only 12 per cent of the articles. The clinical trials published in The New England Journal of Medicine reported 71 per cent of the 11 items, those in the Journal of the American Medical Association 63 per cent, those in the British Medical Journal 52 per cent, and those in the Lancet 46 per cent. These rates are significantly different (P less than 0.001). We recommend that editors improve the reporting of clinical trials by giving authors a list of the important items to be reported.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Mathoulin-Pelissier, S., Gourgou-Bourgade, S., Bonnetain, F., Kramar, A. (2008). Survival End Point Reporting in Randomized Cancer Clinical Trials: A Review of Major Journals. JCO 26: 3721-3726 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Gravel, J., Opatrny, L., Shapiro, S. (2007). The intention-to-treat approach in randomized controlled trials: Are authors saying what they do and doing what they say?. Clin Trials 4: 350-356 [Abstract]  
• Kober, T., Trelle, S., Engert, A. (2006). Reporting of randomized controlled trials in Hodgkin lymphoma in biomedical journals.. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 98: 620-625 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Hait, W. N. (2005). Updated Methods for Reporting Clinical Trials. Clin. Cancer Res. 11: 6753-6754 [Full Text]  
• Greenfield, M. L. V. H., Rosenberg, A. L., O'Reilly, M., Shanks, A. M., Sliwinski, M. J., Nauss, M. D. (2005). The Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in Major Anesthesiology Journals. Anesth. Analg. 100: 1759-1764 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Kober, T., Bohlius, J., Trelle, S., Engert, A. (2005). Second Biannual Report of the Cochrane Haematological Malignancies Group. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 97: E1-E [Full Text]  
• Tooth, L., Ware, R., Bain, C., Purdie, D. M., Dobson, A. (2005). Quality of Reporting of Observational Longitudinal Research. Am J Epidemiol 161: 280-288 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Crosby, R A, Rothenberg, R (2004). In STI interventions, size matters. Sex. Transm. Infect. 80: 82-85 [Full Text]  
• Furukawa, T. A, McGuire, H., Barbui, C. (2002). Meta-analysis of effects and side effects of low dosage tricyclic antidepressants in depression: systematic review. BMJ 325: 991-991 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Halpern, S. D., Karlawish, J. H. T., Berlin, J. A. (2002). The Continuing Unethical Conduct of Underpowered Clinical Trials. JAMA 288: 358-362 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Gross, C. P., Mallory, R., Heiat, A., Krumholz, H. M. (2002). Reporting the Recruitment Process in Clinical Trials: Who Are These Patients and How Did They Get There?. ANN INTERN MED 137: 10-16 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Colditz, G A (2002). Improving standards of medical and public health research. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 56: 333-334 [Full Text]  
• Schulz, K. F., Chalmers, I., Altman, D. G. (2002). The Landscape and Lexicon of Blinding in Randomized Trials. ANN INTERN MED 136: 254-259 [Full Text]  
• Juni, P., Holenstein, F., Sterne, J., Bartlett, C., Egger, M. (2002). Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol 31: 115-123 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Landorf, K. B. (2001). Commentary: Ensuring Adequate Reporting of Randomized, Controlled Trials: The CONSORT Statement. J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc. 91: 435-436 [Full Text]  
• Ruiz-Canela, M., de Irala-Estevez, J., Martinez-Gonzalez, M. A., Gomez-Gracia, E., Fernandez-Crehuet, J. (2001). Methodological quality and reporting of ethical requirements in clinical trials. J. Med. Ethics 27: 172-176 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Schulz, K. F (2001). Assessing allocation concealment and blinding in randomised controlled trials: why bother?. Evid. Based Nurs. 4: 4-6 [Full Text]  
• Arrivé, L., Renard, R., Carrat, F., Belkacem, A., Dahan, H., Le Hir, P., Monnier-Cholley, L., Tubiana, J.-M. (2000). A Scale of Methodological Quality for Clinical Studies of Radiologic Examinations. Radiology 217: 69-74 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Tempfer, C., Seifert, M., Brodowicz, T., Auerbach, L., Zielinski, C., Iacopino, P., Palazzo, S., Patrone, F., Stadtmauer, E. A., Goldstein, L. J., Glick, J. H. (2000). High-Dose Chemotherapy plus Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Rescue for Metastatic Breast Cancer. NEJM 343: 439-441 [Full Text]  
• Dooley, M. J., Vernon, J. (2000). Reproducibility of treatment methodologies detailed in contemporary clinical trial reports. J Oncol Pharm Pract 6: 50-54 [Abstract]  
• Schulz, K. F (2000). Assessing allocation concealment and blinding in randomised controlled trials: why bother?. Evid. Based Med. 5: 36-38 [Full Text]  
• Adetugbo, K., Williams, H. (2000). How Well Are Randomized Controlled Trials Reported in the Dermatology Literature?. Arch Dermatol 136: 381-385 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Schulz, K. F (2000). Assessing allocation concealment and blinding in randomised controlled trials: why bother?. Evid. Based Ment. Health 3: 4-5 [Full Text]  
• FREEDMAN, K. B., BERNSTEIN, J. (1999). Current Concepts Review - Sample Size and Statistical Power in Clinical Orthopaedic Research. JBJS 81: 1454-60 [Full Text]  
• Hawkins, B. S. (1999). The CONSORT Statement: Will It Lead to Improved Reporting of Clinical Trials in Ophthalmology?. Arch Ophthalmol 117: 677-680 [Full Text]  
• Bath, F. J., Owen, V. E., Bath, P. M. W. (1998). Quality of Full and Final Publications Reporting Acute Stroke Trials : A Systematic Review. Stroke 29: 2203-2210 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Junker, C. A. (1998). Adherence to Published Standards of Reporting: A Comparison of Placebo-Controlled Trials Published in English or German. JAMA 280: 247-249 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Scherer, R. W., Crawley, B. (1998). Reporting of Randomized Clinical Trial Descriptors and Use of Structured Abstracts. JAMA 280: 269-272 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Ioannidis, J. P.A., Cappelleri, J. C., Lau, J., Bent, S., Kerlikowske, K., Grady, D., Song, F.-J., Sheldon, T. A., Khan, S., Williamson, P., Sutton, R., Stewart, L. A., Parmar, M. K.B., Tierney, J. F., Sim, I., Lavori, P., Imperiale, T. F., LeLorier, J., Gregoire, G., Bailar, J. C. (1998). Meta-Analyses and Large Randomized, Controlled Trials. NEJM 338: 59-62 [Full Text]  
• Schulz, K. F, Grimes, D. A, Altman, D. G, Hayes, R. J (1996). Blinding and exclusions after allocation in randomised controlled trials: survey of published parallel group trials in obstetrics and gynaecology. BMJ 312: 742-744 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Linde, K., Jonas, W. B., Melchart, D., Worku, F., Wagner, H., Eitel, F. (1994). Critical Review and Meta-Analysis of Serial Agitated Dilutions in Experimental Toxicology. Hum Exp Toxicol 13: 481-492 [Abstract]  
• Longstreth, W. T. Jr, Koepsell, T. D., van Belle, G. (1987). Clinical Neuroepidemiology: II. Outcomes. Arch Neurol 44: 1196-1202 [Abstract]  
• Solomkin, J. S., Dellinger, E. P., Christou, N. V., Mason, A. D. Jr (1987). Design and Conduct of Antibiotic Trials: A Report of the Scientific Studies Committee of the Surgical Infection Society. Arch Surg 122: 158-164 [Abstract]  
• Hokanson, J. A., Stiernberg, C. M., McCracken, M. S., Quinn, F. B. Jr (1987). The Reporting of Statistical Techniques in Otolaryngology Journals. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 113: 45-50 [Abstract]