Cumulative meta-analysis of clinical trials builds evidence for exemplary medical care. Randomized clinical trial of a quality improvement intervention in nursing homes. Quality of reporting in randomized trials published in high-quality surgical journals. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?
Cumulative meta-analysis of clinical trials (a Bayesian interpretation for accumulating evidence) will profoundly affect medical care by summarizing evidence in the assessment of technology innovations. Application of the technique to the randomized control trials (RCTs) of streptokinase treatment of acute myocardial infarction, reduction of peri-operative mortality by antibiotic prophylaxis, and prevention of death from bleeding peptic ulcers has revealed efficacy years before it was suspected by any other means. Arrangement of the trials according to event rate in the controls, effect sizes, quality of the trials or according to covariables of interest has supplied unique information. If carried out prospectively the technique supplies invaluable information regarding indications for another trial, the number of patients necessary to determine the validity of past trends, and the type of patients who might be benefitted. Careful examination in a cumulative manner of the prior trials can reduce the need for future large trials. The purpose of the study was to determine if simply providing nursing facilities with comparative quality performance information and education about quality improvement would improve clinical practices and subsequently improve resident outcomes, or if a stronger intervention, expert clinical consultation with nursing facility staff, is needed.
                Nursing facilities (n = 113) were randomly assigned to one of three groups: workshop and feedback reports only, workshop and feedback reports with clinical consultation, and control. Minimum Data Set (MDS) Quality Indicator (QI) feedback reports were prepared and sent quarterly to each facility in intervention groups for a year. Clinical consultation by a gerontological clinical nurse specialist (GCNS) was offered to those in the second group.
                With the exception of MDS QI 27 (little or no activity), no significant differences in resident assessment measures were detected between the groups of facilities. However, outcomes of residents in nursing homes that actually took advantage of the clinical consultation of the GCNS demonstrated trends in improvements in QIs measuring falls, behavioral symptoms, little or no activity, and pressure ulcers (overall and for low-risk residents).
                Simply providing comparative performance feedback is not enough to improve resident outcomes. It appears that only those nursing homes that sought the additional intensive support of the GCNS were able to effect enough change in clinical practice to improve resident outcomes significantly. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in surgery can provide valuable evidence of the efficacy of interventions if they are well-designed, appropriately executed, and adequately reported. Adequate reporting of methodology in surgical RCTs is known to be poor, and adverse-event reporting in surgical research is inconsistent. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is a framework to help authors report their findings in a transparent manner. Extensions to the CONSORT statement have been published recently to address deficiencies in adverse-event reporting and in reporting of specific criteria related to nonpharmacologic treatments. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of trial methodology and adverse events in a sample of general surgical RCTs published in high-quality surgical journals using the criteria specified in the CONSORT statements.
                We used impact factor to identify the top three ranked surgical journals in 2004. We then obtained information on all RCTs published in these journals in the 2005 calendar year. We assessed quality of reporting using Jadad score, compared the quality of RCTs from CONSORT-endorsing journals with nonendorsers, and assessed the number of RCTs adequately reporting key generic methodologic, adverse-event-related, and specific nonpharmacologic criteria.
                Of 42 RCTs analyzed, only 40% (17 of 42) had a Jadad score > or = 3. There was no significant difference in the number of high-quality RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals compared with nonendorsers (p = 0.3). The median percentage of RCTs adequately reporting generic methodologic, adverse-event-related, and specific nonpharmacologic criteria was 32.5%, 17%, and 36.5%, respectively.
                Quality of reporting of generic methodologic, adverse-event-related, and specific nonpharmacologic criteria in surgical RCTs is poor. Increased attention to quality of reporting of surgical RCTs is required if studies are to meet published criteria. 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.
Overall, the quality of evidence summarised in this review is not of sufficient quality to change current clinical practice. In the absence of clear evidence, the operators should continue to use methods and technique modifications with which they are most familiar with.
Any randomised trials of technique modifications that are performed to high standard with adequate safety outcomes and power to detect important clinical differences would be clearly welcome.