Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
With the rapid increasing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted and published, systematic reviews (SR) meet a large numbers of hits. It is often hard to deal with meta-analysis and other synthesis. However, some trials didnot report completed information on methodology such as just report the “random” without specific information. If review authors cannot contact the trials authors, they have to identify trials as unclear risk of bias and down certainty.
Objectives:
To confirm the reality of unclear reported tirals and the eligibility to be included in SR, and to provide some suggestions for rapid review and research waste.
Methods:
Based on the update of a SR of RCTs from 2013-2019, we conducted the telephone interviews on all authors of 283 trials that only reported “random”, with the questions asked in the following order, including the specific randomization methods, concealment methods, diagnostic examination methods, dropout and losing visiting participants details and reasons, protocol registry number or link, funding details, sample size calculation method, and intervention details. We searched the contact number based on their affiliates and email from Internet. If they answered the wrong randomization methods, we would quit the interview.
Results:
The all authors of 147 (51.94%) trials were failed to find according to the affiliates information of the articles, and the reception desk of hospitals or department said there was no such person. The all authors of 122 trials (43.11%) were contacted successfully but they rejected to answer any questions about the article. The authors of 11 trials (3.89%) replied that their studies were semi-randomization or a controlled study without randomization, and among these 11 answered trials, 9 trials were published by single author. Another one trial (0.35%) published by single author answered that she could not remember the randomization method and rejected to answer other questions. As for another one trial (0.35%) published by single author, we contacted the reception desk of department and the staff said the author was going abroad for advanced studies and no one could contact her. Only one trial (0.35%) published by three authors answered that they used the random table but rejected to answer other questions.
Conclusions:
Among 283 trials, we only could included one trial for specific randomization method. Rapid review is generated by high quality evidence, which are assessed the certainty based on reporting information. So we suggest that the journal editors should manage the reporting quality of RCTs following the CONSORT. A rigorous RCTs should finish not only by single person but the collaboration of investigators, clinical expert, and methodologist, statistician. So, to avoid the research waste and useless publications, we should improved the selection criteria, such as to exclude the single author articles of RCTs.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
High quality research can help patient and healthcare consume make decision better.
With the rapid increasing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted and published, systematic reviews (SR) meet a large numbers of hits. It is often hard to deal with meta-analysis and other synthesis. However, some trials didnot report completed information on methodology such as just report the “random” without specific information. If review authors cannot contact the trials authors, they have to identify trials as unclear risk of bias and down certainty.
Objectives:
To confirm the reality of unclear reported tirals and the eligibility to be included in SR, and to provide some suggestions for rapid review and research waste.
Methods:
Based on the update of a SR of RCTs from 2013-2019, we conducted the telephone interviews on all authors of 283 trials that only reported “random”, with the questions asked in the following order, including the specific randomization methods, concealment methods, diagnostic examination methods, dropout and losing visiting participants details and reasons, protocol registry number or link, funding details, sample size calculation method, and intervention details. We searched the contact number based on their affiliates and email from Internet. If they answered the wrong randomization methods, we would quit the interview.
Results:
The all authors of 147 (51.94%) trials were failed to find according to the affiliates information of the articles, and the reception desk of hospitals or department said there was no such person. The all authors of 122 trials (43.11%) were contacted successfully but they rejected to answer any questions about the article. The authors of 11 trials (3.89%) replied that their studies were semi-randomization or a controlled study without randomization, and among these 11 answered trials, 9 trials were published by single author. Another one trial (0.35%) published by single author answered that she could not remember the randomization method and rejected to answer other questions. As for another one trial (0.35%) published by single author, we contacted the reception desk of department and the staff said the author was going abroad for advanced studies and no one could contact her. Only one trial (0.35%) published by three authors answered that they used the random table but rejected to answer other questions.
Conclusions:
Among 283 trials, we only could included one trial for specific randomization method. Rapid review is generated by high quality evidence, which are assessed the certainty based on reporting information. So we suggest that the journal editors should manage the reporting quality of RCTs following the CONSORT. A rigorous RCTs should finish not only by single person but the collaboration of investigators, clinical expert, and methodologist, statistician. So, to avoid the research waste and useless publications, we should improved the selection criteria, such as to exclude the single author articles of RCTs.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
High quality research can help patient and healthcare consume make decision better.