An analysis of randomized controlled trials published in the US family medicine literature, 1987-1991.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are frequently used to evaluate the effectiveness of health care interventions in family medicine. The value of the information obtained from RCTs depends largely on the quality of design and the way in which they are conducted and reported. Despite th...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Silagy, C, Jewell, D, Mant, D
Format: Journal article
Language:English
Published: 1994
_version_ 1797088441771491328
author Silagy, C
Jewell, D
Mant, D
author_facet Silagy, C
Jewell, D
Mant, D
author_sort Silagy, C
collection OXFORD
description BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are frequently used to evaluate the effectiveness of health care interventions in family medicine. The value of the information obtained from RCTs depends largely on the quality of design and the way in which they are conducted and reported. Despite the increasing number of RCTs being conducted in family medicine, there is a scarcity of descriptive data on the methodological characteristics, including design features and quality of RCTs in this setting. METHODS: All 55 RCTs published in four peer-reviewed US family medicine journals between 1987 and 1991 were identified and their methodological characteristics reviewed. Three potential sources of bias were assessed in each of the trial reports: (1) control of selection bias at entry, (2) control of selection bias after entry, and (3) control of bias in assessing outcome(s). RESULTS: Fifty-five RCTs published between January 1987 and December 1991 were identified in the four journals. The absolute number of RCTs published over the 5 years increased steadily, and there was a 49% increase in the proportion of RCT articles. Measures used to control for selection bias before entry into the study were reported in 14 (25%) of the RCTs, the statistical power of the trial in 5 (9%), and whether the study had been reviewed by an institutional review board in 6 (11%). CONCLUSIONS: The RCTs analyzed offered some imaginative solutions to the logistic difficulties of conducting RCTs in general practice. Nevertheless, the methodology and reporting of RCTs in the future should be improved.
first_indexed 2024-03-07T02:50:08Z
format Journal article
id oxford-uuid:ad66d8af-784b-4570-ba7a-12a4d0c7a26e
institution University of Oxford
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-07T02:50:08Z
publishDate 1994
record_format dspace
spelling oxford-uuid:ad66d8af-784b-4570-ba7a-12a4d0c7a26e2022-03-27T03:35:18ZAn analysis of randomized controlled trials published in the US family medicine literature, 1987-1991.Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:ad66d8af-784b-4570-ba7a-12a4d0c7a26eEnglishSymplectic Elements at Oxford1994Silagy, CJewell, DMant, DBACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are frequently used to evaluate the effectiveness of health care interventions in family medicine. The value of the information obtained from RCTs depends largely on the quality of design and the way in which they are conducted and reported. Despite the increasing number of RCTs being conducted in family medicine, there is a scarcity of descriptive data on the methodological characteristics, including design features and quality of RCTs in this setting. METHODS: All 55 RCTs published in four peer-reviewed US family medicine journals between 1987 and 1991 were identified and their methodological characteristics reviewed. Three potential sources of bias were assessed in each of the trial reports: (1) control of selection bias at entry, (2) control of selection bias after entry, and (3) control of bias in assessing outcome(s). RESULTS: Fifty-five RCTs published between January 1987 and December 1991 were identified in the four journals. The absolute number of RCTs published over the 5 years increased steadily, and there was a 49% increase in the proportion of RCT articles. Measures used to control for selection bias before entry into the study were reported in 14 (25%) of the RCTs, the statistical power of the trial in 5 (9%), and whether the study had been reviewed by an institutional review board in 6 (11%). CONCLUSIONS: The RCTs analyzed offered some imaginative solutions to the logistic difficulties of conducting RCTs in general practice. Nevertheless, the methodology and reporting of RCTs in the future should be improved.
spellingShingle Silagy, C
Jewell, D
Mant, D
An analysis of randomized controlled trials published in the US family medicine literature, 1987-1991.
title An analysis of randomized controlled trials published in the US family medicine literature, 1987-1991.
title_full An analysis of randomized controlled trials published in the US family medicine literature, 1987-1991.
title_fullStr An analysis of randomized controlled trials published in the US family medicine literature, 1987-1991.
title_full_unstemmed An analysis of randomized controlled trials published in the US family medicine literature, 1987-1991.
title_short An analysis of randomized controlled trials published in the US family medicine literature, 1987-1991.
title_sort analysis of randomized controlled trials published in the us family medicine literature 1987 1991
work_keys_str_mv AT silagyc ananalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrialspublishedintheusfamilymedicineliterature19871991
AT jewelld ananalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrialspublishedintheusfamilymedicineliterature19871991
AT mantd ananalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrialspublishedintheusfamilymedicineliterature19871991
AT silagyc analysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrialspublishedintheusfamilymedicineliterature19871991
AT jewelld analysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrialspublishedintheusfamilymedicineliterature19871991
AT mantd analysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrialspublishedintheusfamilymedicineliterature19871991