Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Thirty years of Medical Research Council randomized trials in solid tumours. The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. Physicians' reasons for not entering eligible patients in a randomized clinical trial of surgery for breast cancer. Selection bias in clinical trials. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? Chronic care clinics: a randomized controlled trial of a new model of primary care for frail older adults. Completeness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians' willingness to prescribe. Outcome reporting among drug trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Danish GPs' perception of disease risk and benefit of prevention. Fewer adverse events as a result of the SAFE or SORRY? programme in hospitals and nursing homes. part i: primary outcome of a cluster randomised trial. Randomized controlled trial of anticipatory and preventive multidisciplinary team care: for complex patients in a community-based primary care setting. Bias in reporting clinical trials. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? A survey of clinical trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in colon surgery: evidence against further use of no-treatment controls. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. Searching MEDLINE for randomized clinical trials involving care of the newborn. Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. How should the impact of different presentations of treatment effects on patient choice be evaluated? A pilot randomized trial. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. Systematic detection and multidisciplinary care of depression in older medical inpatients: a randomized trial. Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. CONSORT adoption and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: a systematic analysis in two dermatology journals. Randomized and non-randomized patients in clinical trials: experiences with comprehensive cohort studies. Funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality: are they related? Results of a pilot study. Preoperative cell-mediated immunity and duration of antibiotic prophylaxis in relation to postopertive infectious complications. A controlled trial in biliary, gastroduodenal and colorectal surgery. Osteoporosis improvement: a large-scale randomized controlled trial of patient and primary care physician education.
To explore whether reported methodologic quality affects estimated intervention effects in randomized trials and contributes to discrepancies between the results of large randomized trials and small randomized trials in meta-analyses.
                Meta-analyses of randomized trials that included at least one large trial (>/=1000 participants) were included, regardless of the therapeutic area. Eligible meta-analyses were identified through electronic searches and bibliographies of relevant articles.
                Full-length randomized trials.
                Methodologic quality was assessed according to reported randomization, double blinding, and follow-up as separate components and by using the Jadad composite scale.
                Fourteen meta-analyses involving 190 randomized trials from eight therapeutic areas were included. Compared with large trials, intervention effects were exaggerated in small trials with inadequate allocation sequence generation (ratio of odds ratios, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.25 to 0.83]; P = 0.011), inadequate allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios, 0.49 [CI, 0.27 to 0.86]; P = 0.014), and no double blinding (ratio of odds ratios, 0.52 [CI, 0.28 to 0.96]; P = 0.01). Large trials did not differ significantly from small trials with adequate generation of the allocation sequence, adequate allocation concealment, or adequate double blinding. No association was seen between reported follow-up and intervention effects. The Jadad scale provided no additional information because the scale and the quality components overlapped substantially.
                Inadequate generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, and double blinding lead to exaggerated estimates of intervention benefit and may contribute to discrepancies between the results of large randomized trials and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. This paper reviews the survival outcome from the randomized Phase III trials in solid tumours published on behalf of, or in collaboration with, the Cancer Therapy Committee (CTC) of the British Medical Research Council over a 30-year period to 31 December 1995. We review briefly the innovations in statistical methodology that have occurred over the period. We also note the ways in which standards of reporting the trials have improved, with more recent publications including, for example, estimates of the size of effect and confidence intervals. In all, 32 trials, involving over 5000 deaths in more than 8000 patients, have been published. Tumour types have included bladder, bone, brain, cervix, colon and rectum, head and neck, kidney, lung, ovary, prostate and skin. This paper presents a bibliography of these trials and gives details of the treatment comparisons made, the numbers of patients randomized and included in the analysis for each treatment arm, the observed numbers of deaths, and an estimate of the hazard ratio with associated 95% confidence intervals. The bibliography also indicates the main endpoint of each trial, whether recurrence-free survival or survival, and whether the trial was aimed at finding a difference or showing equivalence. The MRC trials have made an impact on both clinical practice and research activities. For example, the lung cancer programme has helped to establish the role of chemotherapy in small cell lung cancer and has developed better palliative treatment for non-small cell lung cancer. Trials of the radiosensitizer misonidazole have demonstrated that it has no role in the treatment of a number of cancers, trials of hyperbaric oxygen have defined the biological activity of this approach, and the appropriate dose of radiotherapy in patients with brain tumours has been found. The individual trials recruited between 44 and 824 patients (median 213). A better measure of the information in a trial is the number of deaths reported, which varied from 28 to 661 (median 145). A large proportion of the comparisons (8/29 or 28%) anticipating a survival difference, demonstrated such a difference at the 5% level of significance. Despite this, it is concluded that some of the trials should have been larger. In such cases, hindsight suggests either that an overoptimistic view of the anticipated survival benefit was taken at the design stage, or, for equivalence trials, the planned confidence interval was too wide for definitive statements to be made. As a consequence, the current CTC profolio of ongoing randomized trials open to patient accrual at 1 January 1996 have a projected median size of 600 and range from 120 to 2000 patients. To examine the reporting characteristics and methodological details of randomised trials indexed in PubMed in 2000 and 2006 and assess whether the quality of reporting has improved after publication of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement in 2001.
                Comparison of two cross sectional investigations. Study sample All primary reports of randomised trials indexed in PubMed in December 2000 (n=519) and December 2006 (n=616), including parallel group, crossover, cluster, factorial, and split body study designs.
                The proportion of general and methodological items reported, stratified by year and study design. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to represent changes in reporting between 2000 and 2006.
                The majority of trials were two arm (379/519 (73%) in 2000 v 468/616 (76%) in 2006) parallel group studies (383/519 (74%) v 477/616 (78%)) published in specialty journals (482/519 (93%) v 555/616 (90%)). In both 2000 and 2006, a median of 80 participants were recruited per trial for parallel group trials. The proportion of articles that reported drug trials decreased between 2000 and 2006 (from 393/519 (76%) to 356/616 (58%)), whereas the proportion of surgery trials increased (51/519 (10%) v 128/616 (21%)). There was an increase between 2000 and 2006 in the proportion of trial reports that included details of the primary outcome (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.33), sample size calculation (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.40 to 1.95), and the methods of random sequence generation (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.97) and allocation concealment (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.76). There was no difference in the proportion of trials that provided specific details on who was blinded (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10).
                Reporting of several important aspects of trial methods improved between 2000 and 2006; however, the quality of reporting remains well below an acceptable level. Without complete and transparent reporting of how a trial was designed and conducted, it is difficult for readers to assess its conduct and validity. As of 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors required investigators to register their trials prior to participant enrollment as a precondition for publishing the trial's findings in member journals.
                To assess the proportion of registered trials with results recently published in journals with high impact factors; to compare the primary outcomes specified in trial registries with those reported in the published articles; and to determine whether primary outcome reporting bias favored significant outcomes.
                MEDLINE via PubMed was searched for reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 3 medical areas (cardiology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology) indexed in 2008 in the 10 general medical journals and specialty journals with the highest impact factors.
                For each included article, we obtained the trial registration information using a standardized data extraction form.
                Of the 323 included trials, 147 (45.5%) were adequately registered (ie, registered before the end of the trial, with the primary outcome clearly specified). Trial registration was lacking for 89 published reports (27.6%), 45 trials (13.9%) were registered after the completion of the study, 39 (12%) were registered with no or an unclear description of the primary outcome, and 3 (0.9%) were registered after the completion of the study and had an unclear description of the primary outcome. Among articles with trials adequately registered, 31% (46 of 147) showed some evidence of discrepancies between the outcomes registered and the outcomes published. The influence of these discrepancies could be assessed in only half of them and in these statistically significant results were favored in 82.6% (19 of 23).
                Comparison of the primary outcomes of RCTs registered with their subsequent publication indicated that selective outcome reporting is prevalent. Specific features of trial quality may be associated with exaggeration or shrinking of the observed treatment effect in randomized studies. Therefore, assessment of trial quality is often used in meta-analysis. However, the degree to which specific quality measures are associated with treatment effects has not been well established across a broad range of clinical areas.
                To determine if quality measures are associated with treatment effect size in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
                Quality measures from published quality assessment scales were evaluated in RCTs included in meta-analyses from 4 medical areas (cardiovascular disease, infectious disease, pediatrics, and surgery). Included meta-analyses incorporated at least 6 RCTs, examined dichotomous outcomes, and demonstrated significant between-study heterogeneity in the odds ratio (OR) scale.
                Relative ORs comparing overall treatment effect (summary OR) of high vs low-quality studies, as determined by each quality measure, with relative ORs less than 1 indicating larger treatment effect in low-quality studies.
                Twenty-four quality measures were analyzed for 276 RCTs from 26 meta-analyses. Relative ORs of high vs low-quality studies for these quality measures ranged from 0.83 to 1.26; none was statistically significantly associated with treatment effect. The proportion of studies fulfilling specific quality measures varied widely in the 4 medical areas. In analyses limited to specific medical areas, placebo control, multicenter studies, study country, caregiver blinding, and statistical methods were significantly associated with treatment effect on 7 occasions. These relative ORs ranged from 0.40 to 1.74. However, the directions of these associations were not consistent.
                Individual quality measures are not reliably associated with the strength of treatment effect across studies and medical areas. Although use of specific quality measures may be appropriate in specific well-defined areas in which there is pertinent evidence, findings of associations with treatment effect cannot be generalized to all clinical areas or meta-analyses. Large clinical trials are the criterion standard for making treatment decisions, and nonpublication of the results of such trials can lead to bias in the literature and contribute to inappropriate medical decisions.
                To determine the rate of full publication of large randomized trials presented at annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), quantify bias against publishing nonsignificant results, and identify factors associated with time to publication.
                Survey of 510 abstracts from large (sample size, > or =200), phase 3, randomized controlled trials presented at ASCO meetings between 1989 and 1998. Trial results were classified as significant (P< or =.05 for the primary outcome measure) or nonsignificant (P>.05 or not reported), and the type of presentation and sponsorship were identified. Subsequent full publication was identified using a search of MEDLINE and EMBASE, completed November 1, 2001; the search was updated in November 2002, using the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Authors were contacted if the searches did not find evidence of publication.
                Publication rate at 5 years; time from presentation to full publication.
                Of 510 randomized trials, 26% were not published in full within 5 years after presentation at the meeting. Eighty-one percent of the studies with significant results had been published by this time compared with 68% of the studies with nonsignificant results (P<.001). Studies with oral or plenary presentation were published sooner than those not presented (P =.002), and studies with pharmaceutical sponsorship were published sooner than studies with cooperative group sponsorship or studies for which sponsorship was not specified (P =.02). These factors remained significant in a multivariable model. The most frequent reason cited by authors for not publishing was lack of time, funds, or other resources.
                A substantial number of large phase 3 trials presented at an international oncology meeting remain unpublished 5 years after presentation. Bias against publishing nonsignificant results is a problem even for large randomized trials. Nonpublication breaks the contract that investigators make with trial participants, funding agencies, and ethics boards. We studied the reasons surgical principal investigators chose not to enter patients in a large, multicenter trial sponsored by a cooperative group. In 1976 the National Surgical Adjuvant Project for Breast and Bowel Cancers (NSABP) initiated a clinical trial to compare segmental mastectomy and postoperative radiation, or segmental mastectomy alone, with total mastectomy. Because the low rates of accrual were threatening to close the trial prematurely, we mailed a questionnaire to the 94 NSABP principal investigators, asking why they were not entering eligible patients in the trial. A response rate of 97 per cent was achieved. Physicians who did not enter all eligible patients offered the following explanations: (1) concern that the doctor-patient relationship would be affected by a randomized clinical trial (73 per cent), (2) difficulty with informed consent (38 per cent), (3) dislike of open discussions involving uncertainty (22 per cent), (4) perceived conflict between the roles of scientist and clinician (18 per cent), (5) practical difficulties in following procedures (9 per cent), and (6) feelings of personal responsibility if the treatments were found to be unequal (8 per cent). Further investigation into the behavioral aspects of the investigator-patient relationship is particularly pressing, since fear of change in this relationship was the most common reason given for not entering eligible patients in the trial. Of 90 patients with intermediate or high-grade sarcoma eligible for a randomized trial of adjuvant doxorubicin (Adriamycin, Adria Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio), 48 were not entered: 24 (27%) by physician's choice and 24 refused randomization. Sixty-five percent of lower stage patients were randomized compared with 37% of those with higher stage (P = .02). Patients with extremity lesions were more frequently offered participation in the study (P = .07). Patients with lower stage lesions accepted randomization more readily than those with higher stage lesions (P = .01). As predicted by the higher stage and percentage of central lesions, the disease-free survival of nonrandomized patients was inferior to that of randomized patients (P = .15). Thus, patients at high risk appeared to avoid randomization and adjuvant doxorubicin in this trial, resulting in an inferior disease-free survival for the nonrandomized control group. Important questions generally require randomized trials that reliably determine relative treatment differences. If, however, the patients in a clinical trial are not representative of the entire patient population because of patient and physician selection biases, the generalizability of the results to the entire patient population may be compromised. For example, the prognosis of the general population cannot necessarily be inferred from the selected group in the study. In this study, the randomized and nonrandomized series yielded differing conclusions regarding treatment efficacy, even when an adjustment was made for known prognostic facts. Previous studies indicate that industry-sponsored trials tend to draw proindustry conclusions.
                To explore whether the association between funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials reflects treatment effects or adverse events.
                Observational study of 370 randomized drug trials included in meta-analyses from Cochrane reviews selected from the Cochrane Library, May 2001. From a random sample of 167 Cochrane reviews, 25 contained eligible meta-analyses (assessed a binary outcome; pooled at least 5 full-paper trials of which at least 1 reported adequate and 1 reported inadequate allocation concealment). The primary binary outcome from each meta-analysis was considered the primary outcome for all trials included in each meta-analysis. The association between funding and conclusions was analyzed by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment effect, adverse events, and additional confounding factors (methodological quality, control intervention, sample size, publication year, and place of publication).
                Conclusions in trials, classified into whether the experimental drug was recommended as the treatment of choice or not.
                The experimental drug was recommended as treatment of choice in 16% of trials funded by nonprofit organizations, 30% of trials not reporting funding, 35% of trials funded by both nonprofit and for-profit organizations, and 51% of trials funded by for-profit organizations (P<.001; chi2 test). Logistic regression analyses indicated that funding, treatment effect, and double blinding were the only significant predictors of conclusions. Adjusted analyses showed that trials funded by for-profit organizations were significantly more likely to recommend the experimental drug as treatment of choice (odds ratio, 5.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-14.4) compared with trials funded by nonprofit organizations. This association did not appear to reflect treatment effect or adverse events.
                Conclusions in trials funded by for-profit organizations may be more positive due to biased interpretation of trial results. Readers should carefully evaluate whether conclusions in randomized trials are supported by data. To determine whether a new model of primary care, Chronic Care Clinics, can improve outcomes of common geriatric syndromes (urinary incontinence, falls, depressive symptoms, high risk medications, functional impairment) in frail older adults.
                Randomized controlled trial with 24 months of follow-up. Physician practices were randomized either to the Chronic Care Clinics intervention or to usual care.
                Nine primary care physician practices that comprise an ambulatory clinic in a large staff-model HMO in western Washington State.
                Those patients aged 65 and older in each practice with the highest risk for being hospitalized or experiencing functional decline.
                Intervention practices (5 physicians, 96 patients) held half-day Chronic Care Clinics every 3 to 4 months. These clinics included an extended visit with the physician and nurse dedicated to planning chronic disease management; a pharmacist visit that emphasized reduction of polypharmacy and high-risk medications; and a patient self-management/support group. Control practices (4 physicians, 73 patients) received usual care.
                Changes in self-reported urinary incontinence, frequency of falls, depressive symptoms, physical function, and satisfaction were analyzed using an intention-to-treat analysis adjusted for baseline differences, covariates, and practice-level variation. Prescriptions for high-risk medications and cost/utilization data obtained from administrative data were similarly analyzed.
                After 24 months, no significant improvements in frequency of incontinence, proportion with falls, depression scores, physical function scores, or prescriptions for high risk medications were demonstrated. Costs of medical care including frequency of hospitalization, hospital days, emergency and ambulatory visits, and total costs of care were not significantly different between intervention and control groups. A higher proportion of intervention patients rated the overall quality of their medical care as excellent compared with control patients (40.0% vs 25.3%, P = .10).
                Although intervention patients expressed high levels of satisfaction with Chronic Care Clinics, improved outcomes for selected geriatric syndromes were not demonstrated. These findings suggest the need for developing greater system-wide support for managing geriatric syndromes in primary care and illustrate the challenges of conducting practice improvement research in a rapidly changing delivery system. Clinical trials may lead to conflicting results. We studied how different ways of reporting results affected physicians' recommendations. A questionnaire distributed to 148 general practitioners presented results of a clinical trial where a reduction of cardiac events and an increase of mortality was reported. Results were shown in four different ways--relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, percentages of event-free patients, number needing to be treated to prevent an event--as if they derived from different trials. A fifth presentation was the reduced rate of cardiac events along with the increased rate of mortality. Physicians were asked to estimate how much they would be willing to prescribe each drug. The mean agreement of physicians' decisions was 77 (28)% for relative risk reduction, 24 (28)% for absolute risk reduction, 37 (37)% for different percentages event-free patients, 34 (34)% for number need to treat, and 23 (28)% for events reduction and mortality for increase (p < 0.001 relative risk vs others). The method of reporting trial results and the completeness of information in the case of controversial results affects physicians willingness to prescribe. Clinical trial registries are in widespread use to promote transparency around trials and their results.
                To describe characteristics of drug trials listed in ClinicalTrials.gov and examine whether the funding source of these trials is associated with favorable published outcomes.
                An observational study of safety and efficacy trials for anticholesteremics, antidepressants, antipsychotics, proton-pump inhibitors, and vasodilators conducted between 2000 and 2006.
                ClinicalTrials.gov, a Web-based registry of clinical trials launched in 1999.
                Publications resulting from the trials for the 5 drug categories of interest were identified, and data were abstracted on the trial record and publication, including timing of registration, elements of the study design, funding source, publication date, and study outcomes. Assessments were based on the primary funding categories of industry, government agencies, and nonprofit or nonfederal organizations.
                Among 546 drug trials, 346 (63%) were primarily funded by industry, 74 (14%) by government sources, and 126 (23%) by nonprofit or nonfederal organizations. Trials funded by industry were more likely to be phase 3 or 4 trials (88.7%; P < 0.001 across groups), to use an active comparator in controlled trials (36.8%; P = 0.010 across groups), to be multicenter (89.0%; P < 0.001 across groups), and to enroll more participants (median sample size, 306 participants; P < 0.001 across groups). Overall, 362 (66.3%) trials had published results. Industry-funded trials reported positive outcomes in 85.4% of publications, compared with 50.0% for government-funded trials and 71.9% for nonprofit or nonfederal organization-funded trials (P < 0.001). Trials funded by nonprofit or nonfederal sources with industry contributions were also more likely to report positive outcomes than those without industry funding (85.0% vs. 61.2%; P = 0.013). Rates of trial publication within 24 months of study completion ranged from 32.4% among industry-funded trials to 56.2% among nonprofit or nonfederal organization-funded trials without industry contributions (P = 0.005 across groups).
                The publication status of a trial could not always be confirmed, which could result in misclassification. Additional information on study protocols and comprehensive trial results were not available to further explore underlying factors for the association between funding source and outcome reporting.
                In this sample of registered drug trials, those funded by industry were less likely to be published within 2 years of study completion and were more likely to report positive outcomes than were trials funded by other sources.
                National Library of Medicine and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. Uncertainty and risk are central issues in relation to health and health care services. Healthy individuals do not necessarily fall ill, despite the presence of risk factors. It has been documented that doctors, health service administrators and patients are more inclined to choose interventions against risk factors when information about the effects is presented in terms of relative risk reductions rather than absolute risk reductions.
                The objective of the study was to gain better insight into how GPs perceive risk of disease, and how this perception is influenced by the way the risk is presented, e.g. whether changes in risk are presented in absolute or relative terms.
                Questionnaires with clinical episodes were sent to 1500 Danish GPs. The GPs were randomized into four groups of 375, who all received the same case story with information about risk reduction achieved through medical treatment phrased in terms of either relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat or all of the aforementioned terms of risk reduction. The GPs were asked whether they would recommend medical treatment as primary prevention, knowing the case story and expected risk reduction.
                The GPs' attitude towards recommending medical treatment was dependent on the phrasing of risk reductions. Seventy-two per cent of doctors who received all information on risk reductions would definitely or probably recommend medication, while 91% would recommend medication if information only about relative risk reduction was given, and 63% would recommend medication if information was given in terms of absolute risk reduction or number needed to treat.
                In order to advise patients in a rational way, in addition to knowledge of the patients' preferences, doctors need to take into account all available measures of risk reductions. Patient care guidelines are usually implemented one at a time, yet patients are at risk for multiple, often preventable, adverse events simultaneously.
                This study aimed to test the effect of the SAFE or SORRY? programme on the incidence of three adverse events (pressure ulcers, urinary tract infections and falls). This paper describes Part I of the study: the effect on the incidence of adverse events.
                A cluster randomised trial was conducted between September 2006 and November 2008. After a three-month baseline period the intervention was implemented followed by a nine-month follow-up period.
                Ten wards from four hospitals and ten wards from six nursing homes were stratified for institute and ward type and then randomised to intervention or usual care group.
                During baseline and follow-up, patients (≥18 years) with an expected length of stay of at least five days, were asked to participate.
                The SAFE or SORRY? programme consisted of the essential recommendations of guidelines for the three adverse events. A multifaceted implementation strategy was used for the implementation: education, patient involvement and feedback on process and outcome indicators. The usual care group continued care as usual. Data were collected on the incidence of adverse events and a Poisson regression model was used to estimate the rate ratio of the adverse events between the intervention and the usual care group at follow-up.
                At follow-up, 2201 hospital patients with 3358 patient weeks and 392 nursing home patients with 5799 patient weeks were observed. Poisson regression analyses showed a rate ratio for the development of an adverse event in favour of the intervention group of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.34-0.95) and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.48-0.99) for hospital patients and nursing home patients respectively.
                This study showed that implementing multiple guidelines simultaneously is possible, which is promising. Patients in the intervention groups developed 43% and 33% fewer adverse events compared to the usual care groups in hospitals and nursing homes respectively. Even so, more research is necessary to underline these results.
                clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00365430.
                Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. T o examine whether quality of care (QOC) improves when nurse practitioners and pharmacists work with family physicians in community practice and focus their work on patients who are 50 years of age and older and considered to be at risk of experiencing adverse health outcomes.
                Randomized controlled trial.
                A family health network with 8 family physicians, 5 nurses, and 11 administrative personnel serving 10 000 patients in a rural area near Ottawa, Ont.
                Patients 50 years of age and older at risk of experiencing adverse health outcomes (N = 241).
                At-risk patients were randomly assigned to receive usual care from their family physicians or Anticipatory and Preventive Team Care (APTCare) from a collaborative team composed of their physicians, 1 of 3 nurse practitioners, and a pharmacist.
                Quality of care for chronic disease management (CDM) for diabetes, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
                Controlling for baseline demographic characteristics, the APTCare approach improved CDM QOC by 9.2% (P < .001) compared with traditional care. The APTCare intervention also improved preventive care by 16.5% (P < .001). We did not observe significant differences in other secondary outcome measures (intermediate clinical outcomes, quality of life [Short-Form 36 and health-related quality of life scales], functional status [instrumental activities of daily living scale] and service usage).
                Additional resources in the form of collaborative multidisciplinary care teams with intensive interventions in primary care can improve QOC for CDM in a population of older at-risk patients. The appropriateness of this intervention will depend on its cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT00238836 (CONSORT). The primary aim of the present study was to identify possible occurrence of selective reporting of the results of clinical trials to the Finnish National Agency for Medicines. Selective reporting may lead to poorly informed action or inaction by regulatory authorities.
                In 1987, 274 clinical drug trials were notified to the Finnish National Agency for Medicines. By December 1993, final reports had been received from 68 of these trials and statements that the trial had been suspended from 24 trials. The sponsors of the non-reported trials were requested to report the outcome. The outcomes, if any, of all reported and non-reported trials were classified as positive, inconclusive or negative.
                The total number of trials with positive, inconclusive or negative outcome were 111, 33 and 44, respectively; the outcomes of 86 trials could not be assessed. Final reports were received from 42/111 (38%) trials with positive, 6/33 (18%) with inconclusive and 9/44 (20%) with negative outcomes.
                Substantial evidence of selective reporting was detected, since trials with positive outcome resulted more often in submission of final report to regulatory authority than those with inconclusive or negative outcomes. Few meta-analyses of randomised trials assess the quality of the studies included. Yet there is increasing evidence that trial quality can affect estimates of intervention efficacy. We investigated whether different methods of quality assessment provide different estimates of intervention efficacy evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
                We randomly selected 11 meta-analyses that involved 127 RCTs on the efficacy of interventions used for circulatory and digestive diseases, mental health, and pregnancy and childbirth. We replicated all the meta-analyses using published data from the primary studies. The quality of reporting of all 127 clinical trials was assessed by means of component and scale approaches. To explore the effects of quality on the quantitative results, we examined the effects of different methods of incorporating quality scores (sensitivity analysis and quality weights) on the results of the meta-analyses.
                The quality of trials was low. Masked assessments provided significantly higher scores than unmasked assessments (mean 2.74 [SD 1.10] vs 2.55 [1.20]). Low-quality trials (score < or = 2), compared with high-quality trials (score > 2), were associated with an increased estimate of benefit of 34% (ratio of odds ratios [ROR] 0.66 [95% CI 0.52-0.83]). Trials that used inadequate allocation concealment, compared with those that used adequate methods, were also associated with an increased estimate of benefit (37%; ROR=0.63 [0.45-0.88]). The average treatment benefit was 39% (odds ratio [OR] 0.61 [0.57-0.65]) for all trials, 52% (OR 0.48 [0.43-0.54]) for low-quality trials, and 29% (OR 0.71 [0.65-0.77]) for high-quality trials. Use of all the trial scores as quality weights reduced the effects to 35% (OR 0.65 [0.59-0.71]) and resulted in the least statistical heterogeneity.
                Studies of low methodological quality in which the estimate of quality is incorporated into the meta-analyses can alter the interpretation of the benefit of intervention, whether a scale or component approach is used in the assessment of trial quality. To evaluate the use of antibiotics given prophylactically of colon surgery, we examined 26 trials published from 1965 to 1980 in which patients given various antibiotic regiments were compared with controls given no antibiotic treatment. In 22 (85 per cent of these trials) antibiotics reduced postoperative wound infection (p less than 0.05 in 14). Combining the results of the trials published from 1965 to 1975 reveals a 95 per cent confidence interval from the true difference in infection rates of 14 +/- 6 per cent (36 per cent for control group vs. 22 per cent for treatment group) and the true difference in death rates of 6.7 +/- 4.4 per cent (11.2 per cent for control group vs 4.5 per cent for treatment group). Yet trials employing control groups given no treatment continue to be reported. Since the use of such controls is justified only when no effective alternative therapy exists, we believe that any further trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in colon surgery should employ a previously proved standard. However, steadily increasing efficacy of treatment means that comparisons of new therapies with standard therapies will become prohibitively expensive because of the large number of patients required. Selective reporting of outcomes within published studies based on the nature or direction of their results has been widely suspected, but direct evidence of such bias is currently limited to case reports.
                To study empirically the extent and nature of outcome reporting bias in a cohort of randomized trials.
                Cohort study using protocols and published reports of randomized trials approved by the Scientific-Ethical Committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, Denmark, in 1994-1995. The number and characteristics of reported and unreported trial outcomes were recorded from protocols, journal articles, and a survey of trialists. An outcome was considered incompletely reported if insufficient data were presented in the published articles for meta-analysis. Odds ratios relating the completeness of outcome reporting to statistical significance were calculated for each trial and then pooled to provide an overall estimate of bias. Protocols and published articles were also compared to identify discrepancies in primary outcomes.
                Completeness of reporting of efficacy and harm outcomes and of statistically significant vs nonsignificant outcomes; consistency between primary outcomes defined in the most recent protocols and those defined in published articles.
                One hundred two trials with 122 published journal articles and 3736 outcomes were identified. Overall, 50% of efficacy and 65% of harm outcomes per trial were incompletely reported. Statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared with nonsignificant outcomes for both efficacy (pooled odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-4.0) and harm (pooled odds ratio, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.8-12.0) data. In comparing published articles with protocols, 62% of trials had at least 1 primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. Eighty-six percent of survey responders (42/49) denied the existence of unreported outcomes despite clear evidence to the contrary.
                The reporting of trial outcomes is not only frequently incomplete but also biased and inconsistent with protocols. Published articles, as well as reviews that incorporate them, may therefore be unreliable and overestimate the benefits of an intervention. To ensure transparency, planned trials should be registered and protocols should be made publicly available prior to trial completion. Randomized clinical trials make up only a small fraction of published articles concerning care of the newborn infant and an even smaller fraction of articles about all human subjects. The busy pediatrician who wants to keep abreast of the medical literature requires strategies to detect such relevant studies promptly and reliably. Computer searching of MEDLINE is an attractive, potentially powerful but not sufficiently validated means of achieving this goal. Therefore, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of two MEDLINE search strategies designed to detect randomized clinical trials for prevention and treatment of newborn diseases among all original articles about human subjects appearing in ten pediatric and general medical journals during 1985 were determined. The yield of both MEDLINE searches was compared to that of a manual search. Fifty-three randomized clinical trials of newborn care were identified by hand search among 233 articles concerning care of the newborn and 2,988 original articles about human subjects. The sensitivities of the MEDLINE searches were 53% and 34%, respectively, and the positive predictive values were 82% and 69%, respectively. Specificity of both computer searches was virtually 100%. Twenty-one randomized clinical trials were not identified by either MEDLINE search strategy, 17 of them for failure of the indexer to assign any methodologic terms at all or failure to assign sufficiently stringent methodologic terms. Consequently, sensitivities were higher, 77% and 68% respectively, when no methodologic terms were used during repeat searches. However, positive predictive values decreased concomitantly to 20% or less.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) Not all clinical trials are published, which may distort the evidence that is available in the literature. We studied the publication rate of a cohort of clinical trials and identified factors associated with publication and nonpublication of results.
                We analysed the protocols of randomized clinical trials of drug interventions submitted to the research ethics committee of University Hospital (Inselspital) Bern, Switzerland from 1988 to 1998. We identified full articles published up to 2006 by searching the Cochrane CENTRAL database (issue 02/2006) and by contacting investigators. We analyzed factors associated with the publication of trials using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models.
                451 study protocols and 375 corresponding articles were analyzed. 233 protocols resulted in at least one publication, a publication rate of 52%. A total of 366 (81%) trials were commercially funded, 47 (10%) had non-commercial funding. 346 trials (77%) were multi-centre studies and 272 of these (79%) were international collaborations. In the adjusted logistic regression model non-commercial funding (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.42, 95% CI 1.14-5.17), multi-centre status (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.03-4.24), international collaboration (OR 1.87, 95% CI 0.99-3.55) and a sample size above the median of 236 participants (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.23-3.39) were associated with full publication.
                In this cohort of applications to an ethics committee in Switzerland, only about half of clinical drug trials were published. Large multi-centre trials with non-commercial funding were more likely to be published than other trials, but most trials were funded by industry. Conflicting reports exist in the medical literature regarding the association between industry funding and published research findings. In this study, we examine the association between industry funding and the statistical significance of results in recently published medical and surgical trials.
                We examined a consecutive series of 332 randomized trials published between January 1999 and June 2001 in 8 leading surgical journals and 5 medical journals. Each eligible study was independently reviewed for methodological quality using a 21-point index with 5 domains: randomization, outcomes, eligibility criteria, interventions and statistical issues. Our primary analysis included studies that explicitly identified the primary outcome and reported it as statistically significant. For studies that did not explicitly identify a primary outcome, we defined a "positive" study as one with at least 1 statistically significant outcome measure. We used multivariable regression analysis to determine whether there was an association between reported industry funding and trial results, while controlling for study quality and sample size.
                Among the 332 randomized trials, there were 158 drug trials, 87 surgical trials and 87 trials of other therapies. In 122 (37%) of the trials, authors declared industry funding. An unadjusted analysis of this sample of trials revealed that industry funding was associated with a statistically significant result in favour of the new industry product (odds ratio [OR] 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-3.5). The association remained significant after adjustment for study quality and sample size (adjusted OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-3.0). There was a nonsignificant difference between surgical trials (OR 8.0, 95% CI 1.1-53.2) and drug trials (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.8), both of which were likely to have a pro-industry result (relative OR 5.0, 95% CI 0.7-37.5, p = 0.14).
                Industry-funded trials are more likely to be associated with statistically significant pro-industry findings, both in medical trials and surgical interventions. Different presentations of treatment effects can affect decisions. However, previous studies have not evaluated which presentations best help people make decisions that are consistent with their own values. We undertook a pilot study to compare different methods for doing this.
                We conducted an Internet-based randomized trial comparing summary statistics for communicating the effects of statins on the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Participants rated the relative importance of treatment consequences using visual analogue scales (VAS) and category rating scales (CRS) with five response options. We randomized participants to either VAS or CRS first and to one of six summary statistics: relative risk reduction (RRR) and five absolute measures of effect: absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat, event rates, tablets needed to take, and natural frequencies (whole numbers). We used logistic regression to determine the association between participants' elicited values and treatment choices. 770 participants age 18 or over and literate in English completed the study. In all, 13% in the VAS-first group failed to complete their VAS rating, while 9% of the CRS-first group failed to complete their scoring (p = 0.03). Different ways of weighting the elicited values had little impact on the analyses comparing the different presentations. Most (51%) preferred the RRR compared to the other five summary statistics (1% to 25%, p = 0.074). However, decisions in the group presented the RRR deviated substantially from those made in the other five groups. The odds of participants in the RRR group deciding to take statins were 3.1 to 5.8 times that of those in the other groups across a wide range of values (p = 0.0007). Participants with a scientific background, who were more numerate or had more years of education were more likely to decide not to take statins.
                Internet-based trials comparing different presentations of treatment effects are feasible, but recruiting participants is a major challenge. Despite a slightly higher response rate for CRS, VAS is preferable to avoid approximation of a continuous variable. Although most participants preferred the RRR, participants shown the RRR were more likely to decide to take statins regardless of their values compared with participants who were shown any of the five other summary statistics.
                Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN85194921. Medical evidence may be biased over time if completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials are delayed when results are not statistically significant.
                To evaluate whether the time to completion and the time to publication of randomized phase 2 and phase 3 trials are affected by the statistical significance of results and to describe the natural history of such trials.
                Prospective cohort of randomized efficacy trials conducted by 2 trialist groups from 1986 to 1996.
                Multicenter trial groups in human immunodeficiency virus infection sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.
                A total of 109 efficacy trials (total enrollment, 43708 patients).
                Time from start of enrollment to completion of follow-up and time from completion of follow-up to peer-reviewed publication assessed with survival analysis.
                The median time from start of enrollment to publication was 5.5 years and was substantially longer for negative trials than for results favoring an experimental arm (6.5 vs 4.3 years, respectively; P<.001; hazard ratio for time to publication for positive vs negative trials, 3.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-7.7). This difference was mostly attributable to differences in the time from completion to publication (median, 3.0 vs 1.7 years for negative vs positive trials; P<.001). On average, trials with significant results favoring any arm completed follow-up slightly earlier than trials with nonsignificant results (median, 2.3 vs 2.5 years; P=.045), but long-protracted trials often had low event rates and failed to reach statistical significance, while trials that were terminated early had significant results. Positive trials were submitted for publication significantly more rapidly after completion than were negative trials (median, 1.0 vs 1.6 years; P=.001) and were published more rapidly after submission (median, 0.8 vs 1.1 years; P=.04).
                Among randomized efficacy trials, there is a time lag in the publication of negative findings that occurs mostly after the completion of the trial follow-up. Major depression is a frequent and serious disorder in older medical inpatients. Because the condition goes undetected and untreated in most of these patients, we conducted a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a strategy of systematic detection and multidisciplinary treatment of depression in this population.
                Consecutive patients aged 65 years or more admitted to general medical services in a primary care hospital between October 1999 and November 2002 were screened for depression with the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS) within 48 hours after admission. Patients found to have major depression were randomly allocated to receive the intervention or usual care. The intervention involved consultation and treatment by a psychiatrist and follow-up by a research nurse and the patient's family physician. Research assistants, blind to group allocation, collected data from the patients at enrollment and at 3 and 6 months later using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), the Medical Outcomes 36-item Short Form (SF-36), the DIS, the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Older Americans Resources and Services (OARS) questionnaire to assess basic and instrumental activities of daily living (OARS-ADL and OARS-IADL) and the Rating Scale for Side Effects. Data on the severity of illness, length of hospital stay, health services and medication use, mortality and process of care were also collected. The primary outcome measures were the HAMD and SF-36.
                Of 1500 eligible patients who were screened, 157 were found to have major depression and consented to participate (78 in the intervention group and 79 in the usual care group). At randomization, there were no clinically or statistically significant differences between the 2 groups. Sixty-four patients completed follow-up to 6 months, 57 withdrew, and 36 died. At 6 months, there were no clinically or statistically significant differences the 2 groups in HAMD or SF-36 scores or any of the secondary outcome measures.
                We were unable to demonstrate that systematic detection and multidisciplinary care of depression was more beneficial than usual care for elderly medical inpatients. Because of recent concerns about conflicts of interest and published research, the author analyzed 107 controlled clinical trials. Studies were classified as favoring either a new therapy or a traditional therapy, and as being supported by a pharmaceutical manufacturer or as being generally supported. Seventy-one per cent of the trials favored new therapies; 43% of these were funded by pharmaceutical firms. Of the 31 trials favoring traditional therapy, only four (13%) were supported by a pharmaceutical firm. There was a statistically significant association between the source of funding and the outcome of the study (p = 0.002). Few trials supported by pharmaceutical manufacturers favored traditional therapy; some reasons for this finding may include selection of drugs likely to be proven efficacious, Type II errors (false-negative studies), and fear of discontinuation of funding should such studies be submitted. Important clinical information may be lost if negative studies are not published. CONSORT (Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials) guidelines were constructed to ensure optimal reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
                To determine the effect of the adoption of CONSORT on the reporting quality of RCTs, we performed a systematic evaluation of RCTs published in two dermatology journals pre- and post-CONSORT adoption.
                The journals selected for the study were the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology and the British Journal of Dermatology. We selected RCTs published in 1997 and 2006 using both Medline and hand searching. The following critical CONSORT criteria were recorded: sample size, type of disease studied, type of control, single-centre or multicentre study, type of funding, blinding, methods and type of randomization, definition of a primary endpoint, justification for sample size selection and power calculation, population for analysis, and adequacy of group comparison. A multivariable analysis was conducted to determine factors associated with optimal reporting quality.
                In total, 98 studies were included. Improvement in reporting quality was evident for the specification of the randomization method (20% in 1997 vs. 45% in 2006, P < 0.01) and for the justification of sample size (22% in 1997 vs. 43% in 2006, P = 0.027). The percentage of studies with optimal reporting quality increased from 11% in 1997 to 28% in 2006 (P = 0.03). Factors significantly associated with a good methodological quality were pharmaceutical industry funding and publication in 2006 vs. 1997.
                There is a need to improve the reporting quality of RCTs published in dermatology journals. In clinical research, randomized trials are widely accepted as the definitive method of evaluating the efficacy of therapies. Random assignment of patients to treatment ensures internal validity of the comparison of new treatments with controls. An assessment of external validity can best be achieved by comparing the randomized study sample to the population of patients who met the eligibility criteria but did not consent to randomization. The Comprehensive Cohort Study (CCS) is designed to recruit all patients fulfilling the clinical eligibility criteria regardless of their consent to randomization. The CCS concept was adopted in the major clinical trials of the German Breast Cancer Study Group (GBSG) conducted between 1983 and 1989. In this period 124 centres recruited 2084 patients in three clinical trials. 734 (35 per cent) of these patients accepted being randomized, while 1350 (65 per cent) chose one of the treatments under study; the randomization rates differed remarkably between trials. In this paper we examine the representativeness of the randomized patients in the three trials. Based on a median follow-up of about 5 years we present results on the external validity of the treatment effects estimated in the randomized patients by means of Cox's proportional hazards model and compare them between trials. We discuss advantages and disadvantages of the CCS design and conclude that its use is only justified under extraordinary circumstances. There has been increasing concern regarding the potential effects of the commercialization of research.
                In order to examine the relationships between funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality, recent issues of five peer-reviewed, high impact factor, general medical journals were hand-searched to identify a sample of 100 randomized controlled trials (20 trials/journal). Relevant data, including funding source (industry/not-for-profit/mixed/not reported) and statistical significance of primary outcome (favouring new treatment/favouring conventional treatment/neutral/unclear), were abstracted. Quality scores were assigned using the Jadad scale and the adequacy of allocation concealment.
                Sixty-six percent of trials received some industry funding. Trial outcome was not associated with funding source (p=.461). There was a preponderance of favourable statistical conclusions among published trials with 67% reporting results that favored a new treatment whereas 6% favoured the conventional treatment. Quality scores were not associated with funding source or trial outcome.
                It is not known whether the absence of significant associations between funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality reflects a true absence of an association or is an artefact of inadequate statistical power, reliance on voluntary disclosure of funding information, a focus on trials recently published in the top medical journals, or some combination thereof. Continued and expanded monitoring of potential conflicts is recommended, particularly in light of new guidelines for disclosure that have been endorsed by the ICMJE. In a prospective controlled trial, 750 patients undergoing elective biliary, gastric or colorectal surgery were randomized to receive short-term or long-term antibiotic prophylaxis--cefotaxime for biliary or gastric, and gentamicin/metronidazole for colorectal operations. In all patients, delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity was preoperatively assessed by simultaneous application of seven standardized recall antigens. Positive reaction was defined as mean diameter greater than or equal to 2 mm, anergy as no positive reaction to any antigen, and a 'score' as the sum (in mm) of all the mean diameters of positive reactions. There was no significant difference in septic complication or mortality rates following short-term vs. long-term prophylaxis. Anergy was found in 21 patients (2.8%), while 63 (8.4%) scored 2-4 and 666 (88.8%) greater than or equal to 5. The incidence of postoperative infectious complications was 25% in the patients with score less than 5 and 10% in those scoring greater than or equal to 5, and the corresponding mortality was 14.3 and 2.1% (both p less than 0.001). In the group with preoperative scores less than 5, the duration of antibiotic prophylaxis influenced neither postopertive infectious complications nor mortality. We conducted a randomized controlled trial within the setting of a large drug benefit plan for Medicare beneficiaries. Primary care physicians and their patients were randomized to usual care, patient intervention only, physician intervention only, or both interventions. There was no difference in the probability of the primary composite endpoint (BMD test or osteoporosis medication) or in either of its components comparing the combined intervention group with usual care (risk ratio = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.85-1.26).
                Fractures from osteoporosis are associated with substantial morbidity, mortality, and cost. However, only a minority of at-risk older adults receives screening and/or treatment for this condition. We evaluated the effect of educational interventions for osteoporosis targeting at-risk patients, primary care physicians, or both.
                We conducted a randomized controlled trial within the setting of a large drug benefit plan for Medicare beneficiaries. Primary care physicians and their patients were randomized to usual care, patient intervention only, physician intervention only, or both interventions. The at-risk patients were women >or=65 yr of age, men and women >or=65 yr of age with a prior fracture, and men and women >or=65 yr of age who used oral glucocorticoids. The primary outcome studied was a composite of either undergoing a BMD test or initiating a medication used for osteoporosis. The secondary outcome was a hip, humerus, spine, or wrist fracture.
                We randomized 828 primary care physicians and their 13,455 eligible at-risk patients into four study arms. Physician and patient characteristics were very similar across all four groups. Across all four groups, the rate of the composite outcome was 10.3 per 100 person-years and did not differ between the usual care and the combined intervention groups (p = 0.5). In adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, there was no difference in the probability of the primary composite endpoint comparing the combined intervention group with usual care (risk ratio = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.85-1.26). There was also no difference in either of the components of the composite endpoint. The probability of fracture during follow-up was 4.2 per 100 person-years and did not differ by treatment assignment (p = 0.9).
                In this trial, a relatively brief program of patient and/or physician education did not work to improve the management of osteoporosis. More intensive efforts should be considered for future quality improvement programs for osteoporosis.
Despite reviewing 39 eligible trials, few firm conclusions could be reached because of the multiple comparisons considered, the small size of individual trials, and their low quality. Whether or not to use a particular policy is usually a trade-off between the risks of morbidity (especially infection) and risks of recatheterisation.