Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials from two leading cancer journals using the CONSORT statement.

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authorscopusid6603267445
dc.authorscopusid7005232620
dc.authorscopusid57528392000
dc.authorscopusid35364367400
dc.contributor.authorSüt N.
dc.contributor.authorSenocak M.
dc.contributor.authorUysal O.
dc.contributor.authorKöksalan H.
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-12T10:25:09Z
dc.date.available2024-06-12T10:25:09Z
dc.date.issued2008
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: No study has been conducted on the scientific quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the cancer field. Our objective was to determine whether adherence to the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is associated with scientific properties of RCT reports from two leading cancer journals. METHODS: We conducted an observational study of RCTs published between 2002 and 2004 in two leading cancer journals that did not endorse the CONSORT statement during that period. We determined the adherence rates with confidence intervals of 33 RCTs according to the 19 methodological items of the CONSORT statement. Each RCT was blindly assessed by three independent evaluators; then the evaluators examined all judgments sequentially and obtained a consensus regarding each methodological item of the CONSORT statement. RESULTS: The average adherence of these 33 RCTs to the 19 methodological items of the CONSORT statement was 79.3% (95% CI, 75.3-83.4%). Most descriptors from the checklist were determined to be methodologically adequate except sequence generation (56.1%; 95% CI, 40.9-71.3%), allocation concealment (27.3%; 95% CI, 13.2-41.4%), implementation (7.6%; 95% CI, 0.0-15.4%), blinding (30.3%; 95% CI, 14.4-46.3%) and sample size (74.2%; 95% CI, 59.5-89.0%). Of all CONSORT checklist items, randomization implementation was the most often omitted. CONCLUSION: Some key methodological items of the CONSORT statement seem poorly addressed in RCTs from these leading cancer journals. Thus researchers should be urged to conform to the CONSORT statement when reporting on RCTs, and the poorly addressed items of the CONSORT statement should be reevaluated for RCTs already reported.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/S1658-3876(08)50059-8
dc.identifier.endpage43en_US
dc.identifier.issn1658-3876
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.pmid20063527en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-75749098161en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage38en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/S1658-3876(08)50059-8
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14551/16195
dc.identifier.volume1en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofHematology/oncology and stem cell therapyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectArticle; Human; Methodology; Neoplasm; Publication; Randomized Controlled Trial; Standard; Humans; Neoplasms; Periodicals As Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials As Topic; Research Designen_US
dc.titleAssessing the quality of randomized controlled trials from two leading cancer journals using the CONSORT statement.en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu