Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Intensive Care Medicine 8/2013

01.08.2013 | Original

Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials published in Intensive Care Medicine from 2001 to 2010

verfasst von: Nicola Latronico, Marta Metelli, Maddalena Turin, Simone Piva, Frank A. Rasulo, Cosetta Minelli

Erschienen in: Intensive Care Medicine | Ausgabe 8/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in Intensive Care Medicine from 2001 to 2010, and to compare it with a previous review of RCTs published from 1975 to 2000.

Methods

We assessed the quality of reporting of randomization, blinding and participant flow, both individually and combined within the Jadad scale, and compared them with findings from our previous review. For RCTs published from 2001 to 2010, we also evaluated the frequency of distorted finding presentation (spin) and inflated predicted treatment effect (delta inflation).

Results

In the 221 RCTs from 2001 to 2010, the sample size was significantly larger than in the older series, and there was a higher proportion of studies with negative findings. Reporting of the rationale for sample size estimation and allocation concealment increased significantly, but reporting of other important individual methodological components did not change substantially compared with the previous period and remained low. Among RCTs from 2001 to 2010, a spin strategy was used in 69 of 111 RCTs with statistically negative results, while delta inflation was present in 7 of 11 RCTs evaluating survival as a primary outcome. Papers with higher Jadad scores were cited more often than the others.

Conclusions

Quality of reporting of RCTs published in Intensive Care Medicine has only partly improved over time, and spin and delta bias are of frequent occurrence. There is a need for stronger adherence to CONSORT recommendations, with special emphasis on accurate description of randomization and blindness, and correct reporting of statistically non-significant results.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S (1995) Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 16:62–73PubMedCrossRef Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S (1995) Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 16:62–73PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273:408–412PubMedCrossRef Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273:408–412PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, Tugwell P, Klassen TP (1998) Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 352:609–613PubMedCrossRef Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, Tugwell P, Klassen TP (1998) Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 352:609–613PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, Gotzsche PC, Lang T (2001) The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 134:663–694PubMedCrossRef Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, Gotzsche PC, Lang T (2001) The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 134:663–694PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C (2001) Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 135:982–989PubMedCrossRef Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C (2001) Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 135:982–989PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Hrobjartsson A, Thomsen AS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, Ravaud P, Brorson S (2012) Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors. BMJ 344:e1119PubMedCrossRef Hrobjartsson A, Thomsen AS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, Ravaud P, Brorson S (2012) Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors. BMJ 344:e1119PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Juni P, Pildal J, Als-Nielsen B, Balk EM, Gluud C, Gluud LL, JP AI, Schulz KF, Beynon R, Welton NJ, Wood L, Moher D, Deeks JJ, Sterne JA (2012) Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Juni P, Pildal J, Als-Nielsen B, Balk EM, Gluud C, Gluud LL, JP AI, Schulz KF, Beynon R, Welton NJ, Wood L, Moher D, Deeks JJ, Sterne JA (2012) Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M (2008) Assessing the quality of randomised controlled trialssystematic reviews in health care. BMJ, London, pp 87–108 Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M (2008) Assessing the quality of randomised controlled trialssystematic reviews in health care. BMJ, London, pp 87–108
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12PubMedCrossRef Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Altman DG (2001) Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. BMJ 323:224–228PubMedCrossRef Altman DG (2001) Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. BMJ 323:224–228PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Huwiler-Muntener K, Juni P, Junker C, Egger M (2002) Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA 287:2801–2804PubMedCrossRef Huwiler-Muntener K, Juni P, Junker C, Egger M (2002) Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA 287:2801–2804PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Juni P, Altman DG, Gluud C, Martin RM, Wood AJ, Sterne JA (2008) Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 336:601–605PubMedCrossRef Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Juni P, Altman DG, Gluud C, Martin RM, Wood AJ, Sterne JA (2008) Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 336:601–605PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Aberegg SK, Richards DR, O’Brien JM (2010) Delta inflation: a bias in the design of randomized controlled trials in critical care medicine. Crit Care 14:R77PubMedCrossRef Aberegg SK, Richards DR, O’Brien JM (2010) Delta inflation: a bias in the design of randomized controlled trials in critical care medicine. Crit Care 14:R77PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG (2010) Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA 303:2058–2064PubMedCrossRef Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG (2010) Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA 303:2058–2064PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ, Altman DG (2012) Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. JAMA 308:2594–2604PubMedCrossRef Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ, Altman DG (2012) Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. JAMA 308:2594–2604PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Latronico N, Botteri M, Minelli C, Zanotti C, Bertolini G, Candiani A (2002) Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in the intensive care literature. A systematic analysis of papers published in Intensive Care Medicine over 26 years. Intensive Care Med 28:1316–1323PubMedCrossRef Latronico N, Botteri M, Minelli C, Zanotti C, Bertolini G, Candiani A (2002) Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in the intensive care literature. A systematic analysis of papers published in Intensive Care Medicine over 26 years. Intensive Care Med 28:1316–1323PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Azoulay E, Citerio G, Timsit JF (2013) The identity of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med 39:343–344CrossRef Azoulay E, Citerio G, Timsit JF (2013) The identity of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med 39:343–344CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Sud S, Sud M, Friedrich JO, Meade MO, Ferguson ND, Wunsch H, Adhikari NK (2010) High frequency oscillation in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS): systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 340:c2327PubMedCrossRef Sud S, Sud M, Friedrich JO, Meade MO, Ferguson ND, Wunsch H, Adhikari NK (2010) High frequency oscillation in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS): systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 340:c2327PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Felder TM, Palmer NR, Lal LS, Mullen PD (2011) What is the evidence for pharmaceutical patient assistance programs? A systematic review. J Health Care Poor Underserved 22:24–49PubMed Felder TM, Palmer NR, Lal LS, Mullen PD (2011) What is the evidence for pharmaceutical patient assistance programs? A systematic review. J Health Care Poor Underserved 22:24–49PubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Poolman RW, Struijs PA, Krips R, Sierevelt IN, Lutz KH, Bhandari M (2006) Does a “Level I Evidence” rating imply high quality of reporting in orthopaedic randomised controlled trials? BMC Med Res Methodol 6:44PubMedCrossRef Poolman RW, Struijs PA, Krips R, Sierevelt IN, Lutz KH, Bhandari M (2006) Does a “Level I Evidence” rating imply high quality of reporting in orthopaedic randomised controlled trials? BMC Med Res Methodol 6:44PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Lai TY, Wong VW, Lam RF, Cheng AC, Lam DS, Leung GM (2007) Quality of reporting of key methodological items of randomized controlled trials in clinical ophthalmic journals. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 14:390–398PubMedCrossRef Lai TY, Wong VW, Lam RF, Cheng AC, Lam DS, Leung GM (2007) Quality of reporting of key methodological items of randomized controlled trials in clinical ophthalmic journals. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 14:390–398PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Sut N, Senocak M, Uysal O, Koksalan H (2008) Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials from two leading cancer journals using the CONSORT statement. Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther 1:38–43PubMed Sut N, Senocak M, Uysal O, Koksalan H (2008) Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials from two leading cancer journals using the CONSORT statement. Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther 1:38–43PubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Bai Y, Gao J, Zou DW, Li ZS (2009) Methodological reporting of randomized clinical trials in major gastroenterology and hepatology journals in 2006. Hepatology 49:2108–2112PubMedCrossRef Bai Y, Gao J, Zou DW, Li ZS (2009) Methodological reporting of randomized clinical trials in major gastroenterology and hepatology journals in 2006. Hepatology 49:2108–2112PubMedCrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Danilla S, Wasiak J, Searle S, Arriagada C, Pedreros C, Cleland H, Spinks A (2009) Methodological quality of randomised controlled trials in burns care. A systematic review. Burns 35:956–961PubMedCrossRef Danilla S, Wasiak J, Searle S, Arriagada C, Pedreros C, Cleland H, Spinks A (2009) Methodological quality of randomised controlled trials in burns care. A systematic review. Burns 35:956–961PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Hopewell S, Dutton S, Yu LM, Chan AW, Altman DG (2010) The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. BMJ 340:c723PubMedCrossRef Hopewell S, Dutton S, Yu LM, Chan AW, Altman DG (2010) The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. BMJ 340:c723PubMedCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Strech D, Soltmann B, Weikert B, Bauer M, Pfennig A (2011) Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatment of bipolar disorders: a systematic review. J Clin Psychiatr 72:1214–1221CrossRef Strech D, Soltmann B, Weikert B, Bauer M, Pfennig A (2011) Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatment of bipolar disorders: a systematic review. J Clin Psychiatr 72:1214–1221CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Agha RA, Camm CF, Edison E, Orgill DP (2012) The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery needs improvement: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg Agha RA, Camm CF, Edison E, Orgill DP (2012) The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in plastic surgery needs improvement: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Mills EJ, Wu P, Gagnier J, Devereaux PJ (2005) The quality of randomized trial reporting in leading medical journals since the revised CONSORT statement. Contemp Clin Trials 26:480–487PubMedCrossRef Mills EJ, Wu P, Gagnier J, Devereaux PJ (2005) The quality of randomized trial reporting in leading medical journals since the revised CONSORT statement. Contemp Clin Trials 26:480–487PubMedCrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Weeks L, Peters J, Kober T, Dias S, Schulz KF, Plint AC, Moher D (2012) Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:MR000030 Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Weeks L, Peters J, Kober T, Dias S, Schulz KF, Plint AC, Moher D (2012) Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:MR000030
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D (2010) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 152:726–732PubMedCrossRef Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D (2010) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 152:726–732PubMedCrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Dechartres A, Charles P, Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Altman DG (2011) Reviews assessing the quality or the reporting of randomized controlled trials are increasing over time but raised questions about how quality is assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 64:136–144PubMedCrossRef Dechartres A, Charles P, Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Altman DG (2011) Reviews assessing the quality or the reporting of randomized controlled trials are increasing over time but raised questions about how quality is assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 64:136–144PubMedCrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Hirst A, Altman DG (2012) Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals. PLoS ONE 7:e35621PubMedCrossRef Hirst A, Altman DG (2012) Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals. PLoS ONE 7:e35621PubMedCrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Karanicolas PJ, Farrokhyar F, Bhandari M (2010) Practical tips for surgical research: blinding: who, what, when, why, how? Can J Surg 53:345–348PubMed Karanicolas PJ, Farrokhyar F, Bhandari M (2010) Practical tips for surgical research: blinding: who, what, when, why, how? Can J Surg 53:345–348PubMed
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Fergusson D (2010) CONSORT 2010 changes and testing blindness in RCTs. Lancet 375:1144–1146PubMedCrossRef Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Fergusson D (2010) CONSORT 2010 changes and testing blindness in RCTs. Lancet 375:1144–1146PubMedCrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Charles P, Giraudeau B, Dechartres A, Baron G, Ravaud P (2009) Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: review. BMJ 338:b1732PubMedCrossRef Charles P, Giraudeau B, Dechartres A, Baron G, Ravaud P (2009) Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: review. BMJ 338:b1732PubMedCrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Moher D, Fortin P, Jadad AR, Juni P, Klassen T, Le Lorier J, Liberati A, Linde K, Penna A (1996) Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Lancet 347:363–366PubMedCrossRef Moher D, Fortin P, Jadad AR, Juni P, Klassen T, Le Lorier J, Liberati A, Linde K, Penna A (1996) Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Lancet 347:363–366PubMedCrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2002) Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet 359:614–618PubMedCrossRef Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2002) Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet 359:614–618PubMedCrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Guyatt GH, Mills EJ, Elbourne D (2008) In the era of systematic reviews, does the size of an individual trial still matter. PLoS Med 5:e4PubMedCrossRef Guyatt GH, Mills EJ, Elbourne D (2008) In the era of systematic reviews, does the size of an individual trial still matter. PLoS Med 5:e4PubMedCrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2005) Multiplicity in randomised trials II: subgroup and interim analyses. Lancet 365:1657–1661PubMedCrossRef Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2005) Multiplicity in randomised trials II: subgroup and interim analyses. Lancet 365:1657–1661PubMedCrossRef
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2005) Multiplicity in randomised trials I: endpoints and treatments. Lancet 365:1591–1595PubMedCrossRef Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2005) Multiplicity in randomised trials I: endpoints and treatments. Lancet 365:1591–1595PubMedCrossRef
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2005) Sample size calculations in randomised trials: mandatory and mystical. Lancet 365:1348–1353PubMedCrossRef Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2005) Sample size calculations in randomised trials: mandatory and mystical. Lancet 365:1348–1353PubMedCrossRef
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Lundh A, Gotzsche PC (2008) Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 8:22PubMedCrossRef Lundh A, Gotzsche PC (2008) Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 8:22PubMedCrossRef
44.
Zurück zum Zitat International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2013) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: publishing and editorial issues related to publication in biomedical journals: obligation to publish negative studies. http://www.icmje.org/publishing_1negative.html. Accessed 2 April 2013 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2013) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: publishing and editorial issues related to publication in biomedical journals: obligation to publish negative studies. http://​www.​icmje.​org/​publishing_​1negative.​html. Accessed 2 April 2013
45.
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Powers JH (2008) Noninferiority and equivalence trials: deciphering ‘similarity’ of medical interventions. Stat Med 27:343–352PubMedCrossRef Powers JH (2008) Noninferiority and equivalence trials: deciphering ‘similarity’ of medical interventions. Stat Med 27:343–352PubMedCrossRef
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Kesselheim AS, Robertson CT, Myers JA, Rose SL, Gillet VBA, Ross KM, Glynn RJ, Joffe S, Avorn J (2012) A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures. N Engl J Med 367:1119–1127 Kesselheim AS, Robertson CT, Myers JA, Rose SL, Gillet VBA, Ross KM, Glynn RJ, Joffe S, Avorn J (2012) A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures. N Engl J Med 367:1119–1127
49.
Zurück zum Zitat (2005) In praise of soft science. Nature 435:1003 (2005) In praise of soft science. Nature 435:1003
50.
51.
Zurück zum Zitat Smith R (2003) Medical journals and pharmaceutical companies: uneasy bedfellows. BMJ 326:1202–1205PubMedCrossRef Smith R (2003) Medical journals and pharmaceutical companies: uneasy bedfellows. BMJ 326:1202–1205PubMedCrossRef
52.
Zurück zum Zitat Smith R (2005) Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Med 2:e138PubMedCrossRef Smith R (2005) Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Med 2:e138PubMedCrossRef
53.
Zurück zum Zitat Lundh A, Barbateskovic M, Hrobjartsson A, Gotzsche PC (2010) Conflicts of interest at medical journals: the influence of industry-supported randomised trials on journal impact factors and revenue—cohort study. PLoS Med 7:e1000354PubMedCrossRef Lundh A, Barbateskovic M, Hrobjartsson A, Gotzsche PC (2010) Conflicts of interest at medical journals: the influence of industry-supported randomised trials on journal impact factors and revenue—cohort study. PLoS Med 7:e1000354PubMedCrossRef
54.
Zurück zum Zitat McVeigh ME, Mann SJ (2009) The journal impact factor denominator: defining citable (counted) items. JAMA 302:1107–1109PubMedCrossRef McVeigh ME, Mann SJ (2009) The journal impact factor denominator: defining citable (counted) items. JAMA 302:1107–1109PubMedCrossRef
55.
Zurück zum Zitat Callaham M, Wears RL, Weber E (2002) Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. JAMA 287:2847–2850PubMedCrossRef Callaham M, Wears RL, Weber E (2002) Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. JAMA 287:2847–2850PubMedCrossRef
56.
Zurück zum Zitat Nieminen P, Carpenter J, Rucker G, Schumacher M (2006) The relationship between quality of research and citation frequency. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:42PubMedCrossRef Nieminen P, Carpenter J, Rucker G, Schumacher M (2006) The relationship between quality of research and citation frequency. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:42PubMedCrossRef
57.
Zurück zum Zitat Etter JF, Stapleton J (2009) Citations to trials of nicotine replacement therapy were biased toward positive results and high-impact-factor journals. J Clin Epidemiol 62:831–837PubMedCrossRef Etter JF, Stapleton J (2009) Citations to trials of nicotine replacement therapy were biased toward positive results and high-impact-factor journals. J Clin Epidemiol 62:831–837PubMedCrossRef
58.
Zurück zum Zitat Filion KB, Pless IB (2008) Factors related to the frequency of citation of epidemiologic publications. Epidemiol Perspect Innov EP+I 5:3 Filion KB, Pless IB (2008) Factors related to the frequency of citation of epidemiologic publications. Epidemiol Perspect Innov EP+I 5:3
Metadaten
Titel
Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials published in Intensive Care Medicine from 2001 to 2010
verfasst von
Nicola Latronico
Marta Metelli
Maddalena Turin
Simone Piva
Frank A. Rasulo
Cosetta Minelli
Publikationsdatum
01.08.2013
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Intensive Care Medicine / Ausgabe 8/2013
Print ISSN: 0342-4642
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1238
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-013-2947-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2013

Intensive Care Medicine 8/2013 Zur Ausgabe

Sind Frauen die fähigeren Ärzte?

30.04.2024 Gendermedizin Nachrichten

Patienten, die von Ärztinnen behandelt werden, dürfen offenbar auf bessere Therapieergebnisse hoffen als Patienten von Ärzten. Besonders gilt das offenbar für weibliche Kranke, wie eine Studie zeigt.

Akuter Schwindel: Wann lohnt sich eine MRT?

28.04.2024 Schwindel Nachrichten

Akuter Schwindel stellt oft eine diagnostische Herausforderung dar. Wie nützlich dabei eine MRT ist, hat eine Studie aus Finnland untersucht. Immerhin einer von sechs Patienten wurde mit akutem ischämischem Schlaganfall diagnostiziert.

Bei schweren Reaktionen auf Insektenstiche empfiehlt sich eine spezifische Immuntherapie

Insektenstiche sind bei Erwachsenen die häufigsten Auslöser einer Anaphylaxie. Einen wirksamen Schutz vor schweren anaphylaktischen Reaktionen bietet die allergenspezifische Immuntherapie. Jedoch kommt sie noch viel zu selten zum Einsatz.

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 Appendizitis Nachrichten

Schmerzen im Unterbauch, aber sonst nicht viel, was auf eine Appendizitis hindeutete: Ein junger Mann hatte Glück, dass trotzdem eine Laparoskopie mit Appendektomie durchgeführt und der Wurmfortsatz histologisch untersucht wurde.

Update AINS

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.