This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Piggott, M Articles by Feuer, D Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Piggott, M Articles by Feuer, D Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Palliative Care Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Has CONSORT improved the reporting of randomized controlled trials in the palliative care literature? A systematic review

H McGee

Barts and the London NHS Trust, London

D Feuer

Barts and the London NHS Trust and the Homerton University Hospital NHS Trust, London

Background: In 1996, the CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials) statement for the reporting of clinical trials was produced, based on empirical evidence regarding bias. Aims: This study assessed the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the palliative care literature. Methods: Three specialist journals were hand searched for RCTs. A checklist was devised based on CONSORT recommendations. Two investigators independently assessed all the trials against this checklist. The trials were grouped into time cohorts of five years and quality comparisons made. Trials looking at pain were compared with those trials looking at other aspects of palliative care. Results: Ninety-three RCTs were identified. The number of trials has increased over time: nine in the first cohort, 37 in the second and 47 in the last cohort. The number of patients in the individual trials has also increased over time. Generally, the reporting quality was poor, particularly the areas of allocation concealment, randomization technique and intention to treat analysis, where there is empirical evidence, that it leads to trial bias. Although there were more pain papers than non-pain papers, the quality of reporting was only better for blinding and intention to treat analysis. Conclusion: The quality of reporting of RCTs in the palliative care literature is generally poor. However, there has been an increase in the number and the size of RCTs being carried out. This shows recognition of the importance of an evidence base in palliative care. However, in order to guide clinical decision making, future trials need to improve the quality of their reporting by adhering to the CONSORT statement.

Key Words: CONSORT • palliative • randomized controlled trials • systematic

Palliative Medicine, Vol. 18, No. 1, 32-38 (2004)
DOI: 10.1191/0269216304pm857oa


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. L. Strevel, N. G. Chau, G. R. Pond, A. J. Murgo, P. S. Ivy, and L. L. Siu Improving the Quality of Abstract Reporting for Phase I Cancer Trials Clin. Cancer Res., March 15, 2008; 14(6): 1782 - 1787. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Flemming, J. Adamson, and K. Atkin Improving the effectiveness of interventions in palliative care: the potential role of qualitative research in enhancing evidence from randomized controlled trials Palliative Medicine, March 1, 2008; 22(2): 123 - 131. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. Anttila, A. Malmivaara, R. Kunz, I. Autti-Ramo, and M. Makela Quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials in cerebral palsy. Pediatrics, June 1, 2006; 117(6): 2222 - 2230. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]