Randomized controlled trial

Abstract: It has been suggested that the quality of clinical trials should be assessed by blinded raters to limit the risk of introducing bias into meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and into the peer-review process There is very little evidence in the literature to substantiate this This study describes the development of an instrument to assess the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in pain research and its use to determine the effect of rater blinding on the assessments of quality A multidisciplinary panel of six judges produced an initial version of the instrument Fourteen raters from three different backgrounds assessed the quality of 36 research reports in pain research, selected from three different samples Seven were allocated randomly to perform the assessments under blind conditions The final version of the instrument included three items These items were scored consistently by all the raters regardless of background and could discriminate between reports from the different samples Blind assessments produced significantly lower and more consistent scores than open assessments The implications of this finding for systematic reviews, meta-analytic research and the peer-review process are discussed

Abstract: Part I of this report appeared in the previous issue (Br. J. Cancer (1976) 34,585), and discussed the design of randomized clinical trials. Part II now describes efficient methods of analysis of randomized clinical trials in which we wish to compare the duration of survival (or the time until some other untoward event first occurs) among different groups of patients. It is intended to enable physicians without statistical training either to analyse such data themselves using life tables, the logrank test and retrospective stratification, or, when such analyses are presented, to appreciate them more critically, but the discussion may also be of interest to statisticians who have not yet specialized in clinical trial analyses.

Abstract: Hypertension is the most common condition seen in primary care and leads to myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure, and death if not detected early and treated appropriately. Patients want to be assured that blood pressure (BP) treatment will reduce their disease burden, while clinicians want guidance on hypertension management using the best scientific evidence. This report takes a rigorous, evidence-based approach to recommend treatment thresholds, goals, and medications in the management of hypertension in adults. Evidence was drawn from randomized controlled trials, which represent the gold standard for determining efficacy and effectiveness. Evidence quality and recommendations were graded based on their effect on important outcomes. There is strong evidence to support treating hypertensive persons aged 60 years or older to a BP goal of less than 150/90 mm Hg and hypertensive persons 30 through 59 years of age to a diastolic goal of less than 90 mm Hg; however, there is insufficient evidence in hypertensive persons younger than 60 years for a systolic goal, or in those younger than 30 years for a diastolic goal, so the panel recommends a BP of less than 140/90 mm Hg for those groups based on expert opinion. The same thresholds and goals are recommended for hypertensive adults with diabetes or nondiabetic chronic kidney disease (CKD) as for the general hypertensive population younger than 60 years. There is moderate evidence to support initiating drug treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, calcium channel blocker, or thiazide-type diuretic in the nonblack hypertensive population, including those with diabetes. In the black hypertensive population, including those with diabetes, a calcium channel blocker or thiazide-type diuretic is recommended as initial therapy. There is moderate evidence to support initial or add-on antihypertensive therapy with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker in persons with CKD to improve kidney outcomes. Although this guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the management of high BP and should meet the clinical needs of most patients, these recommendations are not a substitute for clinical judgment, and decisions about care must carefully consider and incorporate the clinical characteristics and circumstances of each individual patient.

Abstract: Objective. —To determine if inadequate approaches to randomized controlled trial design and execution are associated with evidence of bias in estimating treatment effects. Design. —An observational study in which we assessed the methodological quality of 250 controlled trials from 33 meta-analyses and then analyzed, using multiple logistic regression models, the associations between those assessments and estimated treatment effects. Data Sources. —Meta-analyses from the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Database. Main Outcome Measures. —The associations between estimates of treatment effects and inadequate allocation concealment, exclusions after randomization, and lack of double-blinding. Results. —Compared with trials in which authors reported adequately concealed treatment allocation, trials in which concealment was either inadequate or unclear (did not report or incompletely reported a concealment approach) yielded larger estimates of treatment effects ( P P =.01), with odds ratios being exaggerated by 17%. Conclusions. —This study provides empirical evidence that inadequate methodological approaches in controlled trials, particularly those representing poor allocation concealment, are associated with bias. Readers of trial reports should be wary of these pitfalls, and investigators must improve their design, execution, and reporting of trials. ( JAMA . 1995;273:408-412)