[Quality of clinical trials published in Spain on asthma in comparison to trials in English language journals]

The quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There are concerns about the reporting quality of asthma trials.

AIMS

To describe the reporting of contemporary asthma trials and to identify factors associated with better reporting quality.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently searched MEDLINE for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of asthma published between January 2010 and July 2012 in leading generalist and specialist journals. We calculated the proportion of trials that adequately reported each Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist item and an overall quality score for each trial. Factors associated with better reporting quality were investigated.

RESULTS

Thirty-five RCTs satisfied our eligibility criteria. Four trials adequately reported <50% of the items, 15 adequately reported 50-60% of items, and 16 adequately reported >60% of items. Seventeen of the 38 CONSORT items were consistently well reported in more than two-thirds of the articles. In contrast, nine items were poorly reported in more than half the trials - namely, identification as a randomised trial in the title (40.0%), an adequate structured summary/abstract (48.6%), details of eligibility criteria (34.3%), recruitment (48.6%), randomisation procedures (22.9%), intervention (38.5%), harms (34.3%), the funding source (45.7%), and access to the full trial protocol (17.1%). Studies led by teams in high-income country settings were associated with better quality of reporting (relative risk=1.33, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.64).

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of reporting in contemporary asthma literature remains suboptimal. We have identified important areas in which reporting quality needs to be improved.

For randomized controlled trials, the quality of reports of complementary and alternative medicine was as good as reports of conventional medicine

OBJECTIVE

To compare the quality of reporting of reports randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English and in languages other than English (LOE), and to determine whether there were differences between conventional medicine (CM) and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) reports.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We examined more than 600 RCTs associated with 125 systematic reviews. We extracted characteristics of each RCT using a standardized data collection form. We assessed quality using the Jadad scale and the adequacy of allocation concealment.

RESULTS

There were only minor differences in the quality of reports of RCTs published in English compared with other languages (median quality score of 3 vs. 2, P=.10), and the quality of reports of CAM RCTs was similar to the CM reports (median score of 3 vs. 2, P=.14). There was no effect of language of publication on quality of reporting for CM trials (median score of 2 vs. 2, P=.12). Among CAM trials, however, overall quality scores were higher for reports in English than for reports in other languages (median score of 3 vs. 2, P=.04).

CONCLUSION

The overall quality of reports published in languages other than English is similar to that of English-language reports. Moreover, the overall quality of reporting of RCTs of CAM interventions is as good as that for CM interventions.