BMJ  2004;328 (3 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7430.0-c

Poor reporting of trials does not mean poor quality trials

Poor reporting of methods may not reflect on a trial's quality. Soares and colleagues (p 22) compared the published reports of 56 randomised controlled trials conducted by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group with the original research protocols. They found that important methods—sample size calculations, concealment of allocation, and intention to treat analysis—were often not mentioned in the final report but had been explicitly stated in the research protocol. The publication of protocols may improve the quality of conducting and reporting clinical research, the authors say, and contacting the trialists may provide additional information when the research is used in meta-analyses.

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

Relevant Article

Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group

Heloisa P Soares, Stephanie Daniels, Ambuj Kumar, Mike Clarke, Charles Scott, Suzanne Swann, and Benjamin Djulbegovic
BMJ 2004 328: 22-24. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]