Byrne BE, Rooshenas L, Lambert HS, Blazeby JM. A mixed methods case study investigating how randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are reported, understood and interpreted in practice.
BMC Med Res Methodol 2020;
20:112. [PMID:
32398100 PMCID:
PMC7216481 DOI:
10.1186/s12874-020-01009-8]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/26/2019] [Accepted: 05/06/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
While randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide high-quality evidence to guide practice, much routine care is not based upon available RCTs. This disconnect between evidence and practice is not sufficiently well understood. This case study explores this relationship using a novel approach. Better understanding may improve trial design, conduct, reporting and implementation, helping patients benefit from the best available evidence.
METHODS
We employed a case-study approach, comprising mixed methods to examine the case of interest: the primary outcome paper of a surgical RCT (the TIME trial). Letters and editorials citing the TIME trial's primary report underwent qualitative thematic analysis, and the RCT was critically appraised using validated tools. These analyses were compared to provide insight into how the TIME trial findings were interpreted and appraised by the clinical community.
RESULTS
23 letters and editorials were studied. Most authorship included at least one academic (20/23) and one surgeon (21/23). Authors identified wide-ranging issues including confounding variables or outcome selection. Clear descriptions of bias or generalisability were lacking. Structured appraisal identified risks of bias. Non-RCT evidence was less critically appraised. Authors reached varying conclusions about the trial without consistent justification. Authors discussed aspects of internal and external validity covered by appraisal tools but did not use these methodological terms in their articles.
CONCLUSIONS
This novel method for examining interpretation of an RCT in the clinical community showed that published responses identified limited issues with trial design. Responses did not provide coherent rationales for accepting (or not) trial results. Findings may suggest that authors lacked skills in appraisal of RCT design and conduct. Multiple case studies with cross-case analysis of other trials are needed.
Collapse