BMJ 2000;320:1308-1311 ( 13 May )

Papers

Size and quality of randomised controlled trials in head injury: review of published studies

Karen Dickinson, medical student, ^a Frances Bunn, review group coordinator, ^a Reinhard Wentz, information specialist, ^a Phil Edwards, research fellow, ^a Ian Roberts, director. ^b

^a Cochrane Injuries Group, Child Health Monitoring Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Institute of Child Health, London WC1N 1EH, ^b Child Health Monitoring Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Institute of Child Health

Correspondence to: I Roberts ian.roberts{at}ich.ucl.ac.uk

Objective: To assess whether trials in head injury are large enough to avoid moderate random errors and designed to avoid moderate biases.
Design: All randomised controlled trials on the treatment and rehabilitation of patients with head injury published before December 1998 were surveyed. Trials were identified from electronic databases, by hand searching journals and conference proceedings, and by contacting researchers. Data were extracted on the number of participants, quality of concealment of allocation, use of blinding, loss to follow up, and types of participants, interventions, and outcome measures.
Results: 279 reports were identified, containing information on 208 separate trials. The average number of participants per trial was 82, with no evidence of increasing size over time. The total number of randomised participants in the 203 trials in which size was reported was 16 613. No trials were large enough to detect reliably a 5% absolute reduction in the risk of death or disability, and only 4% were large enough to detect an absolute reduction of 10%. Concealment of allocation was adequate in 22 and inadequate or unclear in 25 of the 47 (23%) in which it was reported. Of 126 trials assessing disability, 111 reported the number of patients followed up, and average loss to follow up was 19%. Of trials measuring disability, 26 (21%) reported that outcome assessors were blinded.
Conclusions: Randomised trials in head injury are too small and poorly designed to detect or refute reliably moderate but clinically important benefits or hazards of treatment. Limited funding for injury research and unfamiliarity with issues of consent may have been important obstacles.

---

© BMJ 2000
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Articles

Medical outcome after immediate computed tomography or admission for observation in patients with mild head injury: randomised controlled trial

Jean-Luc af Geijerstam, Sven Oredsson, Mona Britton OCTOPUS Study Investigators
BMJ 2006 333: 465. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Quality of randomised controlled trials in head injury

Gordon D Murray, Graham M Teasdale, Ian Roberts, Frances Bunn, Reinhard Wentz, Phil Edwards, and Richard Smith
BMJ 2000 321: 1223. [Extract] [Full Text]

Quality of randomised controlled trials in head injury

Chantal W P M Hukkelhoven, Ewout W Steyerberg, Andrew I R Maas, and Joel Desmond
BMJ 2000 321: 704. [Extract] [Full Text]

Head injury trials must be bigger and better
BMJ 2000 320: 0. [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• The SAFE Study Investigators, (2007). Saline or Albumin for Fluid Resuscitation in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury. NEJM 357: 874-884 [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]  
• Smith, M., Mahajan, R. P. (2007). Clinical neuroscience: relevance to current practice. Br J Anaesth 99: 1-3 [Full text]  
• Geijerstam, J.-L. a., Oredsson, S., Britton, M., OCTOPUS Study Investigators, (2006). Medical outcome after immediate computed tomography or admission for observation in patients with mild head injury: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 333: 465- [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Boto, G R, Gomez, P A, De La Cruz, J, Lobato, R D (2006). Severe head injury and the risk of early death. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 77: 1054-1059 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Roberts, I., Abbasi, K. (2004). War on the roads: two years on. BMJ 328: 845-845 [Full text]  
• Delucchi, K. L. (2004). Sample Size Estimation in Research With Dependent Measures and Dichotomous Outcomes. Am. J. Public Health 94: 372-377 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Fabbri, A, Servadei, F, Marchesini, G, Morselli-Labate, A M, Dente, M, Iervese, T, Spada, M, Vandelli, A (2004). Prospective validation of a proposal for diagnosis and management of patients attending the emergency department for mild head injury. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 75: 410-416 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Harrison, J. E. (2003). Clinical trials in orthodontics II: assessment of the quality of reporting of clinical trials published in three orthodontic journals between 1989 and 1998. J. Orthod. 30: 309-315 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Smith, M. (2003). Diffuse axonal injury in adults. Trauma 5: 227-234 [Abstract]  
• Jennions, M. D., Moller, A. P. (2003). A survey of the statistical power of research in behavioral ecology and animal behavior. Behav Ecol 14: 438-445 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Harrison, J. E. (2003). Clinical trials in orthodontics I: demographic details of clinical trials published in three orthodontic journals between 1989 and 1998. J. Orthod. 30: 25-30 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• (2002). The MRC CRASH Trial: study design, baseline data, and outcome in 1000 randomised patients in the pilot phase. Emerg. Med. J. 19: 510-514 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Wasserberg, J. (2002). Treating head injuries. BMJ 325: 454-455 [Full text]  
• Marik, P. E., Varon, J., Trask, T. (2002). Management of Head Trauma*. Chest 122: 699-711 [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]  
• Faden, A. I. (2001). Neuroprotection and Traumatic Brain Injury: The Search Continues. Arch Neurol 58: 1553-1555 [Full text]  
• Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G. (2001). The CONSORT Statement: Revised Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Reports of Parallel-Group Randomized Trials. J. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc. 91: 437-442 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Altman, D., for the CONSORT Group, (2001). The CONSORT Statement: Revised Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Reports of Parallel-Group Randomized Trials. JAMA 285: 1987-1991 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Lockey, D. J, Manara, A. R (2001). The role of steroids following major trauma. Trauma 3: 53-61 [Abstract]  
• Murray, G. D, Teasdale, G. M, Roberts, I., Bunn, F., Wentz, R., Edwards, P., Smith, R. (2000). Quality of randomised controlled trials in head injury. BMJ 321: 1223-1223 [Full text]  
• Hukkelhoven, C. W P M, Steyerberg, E. W, Maas, A. I R, Desmond, J. (2000). Quality of randomised controlled trials in head injury. BMJ 321: 704-704 [Full text]  
• Ferrando, J., Plasencia, A., Oros, M., Borrell, C., Kraus, J. F (2000). Impact of a helmet law on two wheel motor vehicle crash mortality in a southern European urban area. Inj. Prev. 6: 184-188 [Abstract] [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

A Multi-centre study into the management of head injured children

Joel Desmond
bmj.com, 20 May 2000 [Full text]

Evidence for best practice is still being delayed by poor trials

M D D Bell
bmj.com, 23 May 2000 [Full text]

Large scale trials of patients with severe head injury would be difficult and expensive

Nicola Latronico
bmj.com, 3 Jun 2000 [Full text]

Size and quality of randomised controlled trials in head injury

Chantal W P M Hukkelhoven, et al.
bmj.com, 3 Jun 2000 [Full text]

Size and quality of randomised controlled trials in head injury

Gordon D Murray, et al.
bmj.com, 31 Jul 2000 [Full text]