Quality of Reporting of Key Methodological Items of Randomized Controlled Trials in Clinical Ophthalmic Journals

REFERENCES

• Sackett D L, Rosenberg W M, Gray J A, et al. Evidence-based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996; 312: 71–72
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Jadad A R, Tugwell P. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. Current issues and future directions. Int J Technol Assess Health Car.e 1996; 12: 195–208
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altman D G. Better reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. BMJ. 1996; 313: 570–571
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: The CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996; 276: 637–639
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altman D G, Schulz K F, Moher D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001; 134: 663–694
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Schulz K F, Altman D G. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2001; 1: 2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: A comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA. 2001; 285: 1992–1995
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huwiler-Muntener K, Juni P, Junker C, Egger M. Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA. 2002; 287: 2801–2804
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devereaux P J, Manns B J, Ghali W A, et al. The reporting of methodological factors in randomized controlled trials and the association with a journal policy to promote adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist. Contemp Clin Trials. 2002; 23: 380–388
   Google Scholar
• Hill C L, La Valley M P, Felson D T. Secular changes in the quality of published randomized clinical trials in rheumatology. Arthritis Rheum. 2002; 46: 779–784
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mills E J, Chow T W. Randomized controlled trials in long-term care residents with dementia: A systemic review. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2003; 4: 302–307
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Piggot M, McGee H, Feuer D. Has CONSORT improved the reporting of randomized controlled trials in the palliative care literature? A systematic review. Palliat Med. 2004; 18: 32–38
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mills E, Loke Y K, Wu P, et al. Determining the reporting quality of RCTs in clinical pharmacology. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004; 58: 61–65
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mills E J, Wu P, Gagnier J, Devereaux P J. The quality of randomized trial reporting in leading medical journals since the revised CONSORT statement. Contemp Clin Trials. 2005; 26: 480–487
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mills E, Wu P, Gagnier J, et al. An analysis of general medical and specialist journals that endorse CONSORT found that reporting was not enforced consistently. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58: 662–667
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kober T, Trelle S, Engert A. Reporting of randomized controlled trials in Hodgkin's lymphoma in biomedical journals. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006; 98: 620–625
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anttila H, Malmivaara A, Kunz R, et al. Quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials in cerebral palsy. Pediatrics. 2006; 117: 2222–2230
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai R, Chu R, Fraumeni M, Thabane L. Quality of randomized controlled trials reporting in the primary treatment of brain tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 7: 1136–1144
   Google Scholar
• Chan A W, Altman D G. Epidemiology and reporting of randomized trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet. 2005; 365: 1159–1162
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer R W, Crawley B. Reporting of randomized clinical trial descriptors and use of structured abstracts. JAMA. 1998; 280: 269–272
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez-Thorin J C, Cortes M C, Montenegro M, et al. The quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials published in Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2001; 108: 410–415
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz K F, Chalmers I, Hayes R J, et al. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995; 273: 408–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juni P, Altman D G, Egger M. Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001; 323: 42–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomized trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet 1998; 352: 609–13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montori V M, Bhandari M, Devereaux P J, et al. In the dark: the reporting of blinding status in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002; 55: 787–90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C. Value of flow diagrams in reports of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2001; 285: 1996–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomized controlled trials. BMJ. 1999; 319: 670–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montori V M, Guyatt G H. Intention-to-treat principle. CMAJ. 2001; 165: 1339–41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freiman J A, Chalmers T C, Smith H, Jr, et al. The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. Survey of 71 “negative” trials. N Engl J Med 1978; 299: 690–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yank V, Rennie D. Reporting of informed consent and ethics committee approval in clinical trials. JAMA 2002; 287: 2835–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruiz-Canela M, de Irala-Estevez J, Martinez-Gonzalez M A, et al. Methodological quality and reporting of ethical requirements in clinical trials. J Med Ethics. 2001; 27: 172–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai T Y, Leung G M, Wong V W, et al. How evidence-based are publications in clinical ophthalmic journals?. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006; 47: 1831–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai T Y, Wong V W, Leung G M. Is ophthalmology evidence-based? A clinical audit of the emergency unit of a regional eye hospital. Br J Ophthalmol 2003; 87: 385–90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhatt R, Sandramouli S. Evidence-based practice in acute ophthalmology. Eye 2006, April 28. doi:10.1038/sj.eye.6702374
   Google Scholar
• Altman D G. Poor-quality medical research. What can journals do?. JAMA 2002; 287: 2765–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hewitt C, Hahn S, Torgerson D J, et al. Adequacy and reporting of allocation concealment: Review of recent trials published in four general medical journals. BMJ. 2005; 330: 1057–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunz R, Oxman A D. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials. BMJ. 1998; 317: 1185–90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonis J, Joines J. The quality of clinical trials published in The Journal of Family Practice, 1974–1991. J Fam Pract. 1994; 39: 225–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar