Assessing The Quality Of Reports Of Randomized Clinical Trials - PubMed

Clipboard, Search History, and several other advanced features are temporarily unavailable. Skip to main page content

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation Search: Search Advanced Clipboard Save Email Send to

• Clipboard
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Display options Display options Format Abstract PubMed PMID

Save citation to file

Format: Summary (text) PubMed PMID Abstract (text) CSV Create file Cancel

Email citation

Email address has not been verified. Go to My NCBI account settings to confirm your email and then refresh this page. To: Subject: Body: Format: Summary Summary (text) Abstract Abstract (text) MeSH and other data Send email Cancel

Add to Collections

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Name your collection: Name must be less than 100 characters Choose a collection: Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel

Add to My Bibliography

• My Bibliography

Unable to load your delegates due to an error Please try again Add Cancel

Your saved search

Name of saved search: Search terms: Test search terms Would you like email updates of new search results? Saved Search Alert Radio Buttons

• Yes
• No

Email: (change) Frequency: Monthly Weekly Daily Which day? The first Sunday The first Monday The first Tuesday The first Wednesday The first Thursday The first Friday The first Saturday The first day The first weekday Which day? Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Report format: Summary Summary (text) Abstract Abstract (text) PubMed Send at most: 1 item 5 items 10 items 20 items 50 items 100 items 200 items Send even when there aren't any new results Optional text in email: Save Cancel

Create a file for external citation management software

Create file Cancel

Your RSS Feed

Name of RSS Feed: Number of items displayed: 5 10 15 20 50 100 Create RSS Cancel RSS Link Copy

Full text links

Elsevier Science Full text links

Actions

CiteCollectionsAdd to Collections

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Name your collection: Name must be less than 100 characters Choose a collection: Unable to load your collection due to an errorPlease try again Add Cancel PermalinkPermalinkCopyDisplay options Display options Format AbstractPubMedPMID

Page navigation

• Title & authors
• Abstract
• Publication types
• MeSH terms
• LinkOut - more resources

Title & authors Abstract Publication types MeSH terms LinkOut - more resources Full text links CiteDisplay options Display options Format AbstractPubMedPMID

Abstract

It has been suggested that the quality of clinical trials should be assessed by blinded raters to limit the risk of introducing bias into meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and into the peer-review process. There is very little evidence in the literature to substantiate this. This study describes the development of an instrument to assess the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in pain research and its use to determine the effect of rater blinding on the assessments of quality. A multidisciplinary panel of six judges produced an initial version of the instrument. Fourteen raters from three different backgrounds assessed the quality of 36 research reports in pain research, selected from three different samples. Seven were allocated randomly to perform the assessments under blind conditions. The final version of the instrument included three items. These items were scored consistently by all the raters regardless of background and could discriminate between reports from the different samples. Blind assessments produced significantly lower and more consistent scores than open assessments. The implications of this finding for systematic reviews, meta-analytic research and the peer-review process are discussed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

• Meta-Analysis Actions
  • Search in PubMed
  • Search in MeSH
  • Add to Search

MeSH terms

• Double-Blind Method Actions
  • Search in PubMed
  • Search in MeSH
  • Add to Search
• Female Actions
  • Search in PubMed
  • Search in MeSH
  • Add to Search
• Humans Actions
  • Search in PubMed
  • Search in MeSH
  • Add to Search
• Male Actions
  • Search in PubMed
  • Search in MeSH
  • Add to Search
• Pain / drug therapy Actions
  • Search in PubMed
  • Search in MeSH
  • Add to Search
• Patient Dropouts Actions
  • Search in PubMed
  • Search in MeSH
  • Add to Search
• Peer Review / standards Actions
  • Search in PubMed
  • Search in MeSH
  • Add to Search
• Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / methods Actions
  • Search in PubMed
  • Search in MeSH
  • Add to Search
• Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / standards* Actions
  • Search in PubMed
  • Search in MeSH
  • Add to Search
• Reproducibility of Results Actions
  • Search in PubMed
  • Search in MeSH
  • Add to Search
• Research Design / standards* Actions
  • Search in PubMed
  • Search in MeSH
  • Add to Search
• Technology Assessment, Biomedical Actions
  • Search in PubMed
  • Search in MeSH
  • Add to Search

LinkOut - more resources

• Full Text Sources

  • Elsevier Science

• Other Literature Sources

  • The Lens - Patent Citations Database

Full text links [x] Elsevier Science [x] Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Send To

• Clipboard
• Email
• Save
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation Manager

[x]

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.