This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Greenfield, M. L. V. H. Articles by Nauss, M. D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Greenfield, M. L. V. H. Articles by Nauss, M. D.

---

ECONOMICS, EDUCATION, AND HEALTH SYSTEMS RESEARCH

The Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in Major Anesthesiology Journals

Department of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Andrew L. Rosenberg, MD, The University of Michigan, Department of Anesthesiology, UH 1H247 Box 0048, 1500 East Medical Center Dr., Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0048. Address e-mail to arosen{at}med.umich.edu.

Increased attention has been directed at the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and how they are being reported. We examined leading anesthesiology journals to identify if there were specific areas for improvement in the design and analysis of published clinical studies. All RCTs that appeared between January 2000 and December 2000 in leading anesthesiology journals (Anesthesiology,Anesthesia & Analgesia,Anaesthesia, and Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia) were retrieved by a MEDLINE search. We used a previously validated assessment tool, including 14 items associated with study quality, to determine a quality score for each article. The overall mean weighted quality score was 44% ± 16%. Overall average scores were relatively high for appropriate controls (77% ± 7%) and discussions of side effects (67% ± 6%). Scores were very low for randomization blinding (5% ± 2%), blinding observers to results (1% ± 1%), and post-beta estimates (16% ± 13%). Important pretreatment clinical predictors were absent in 32% of all studies. Significant improvement in the reporting and conduct of RCTs is required and should focus on randomization methodology, the blinding of investigators, and sample size estimates. Repeat assessments of the literature may improve the adoption of guidelines for the improvement of the quality of randomized controlled trials.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. D. Reeves Increase in Quality, but Not Quantity, of Clinical Trials in Acute Pain: 1992 Versus 2007 Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2009; 109(5): 1656 - 1658. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. L. V. H. Greenfield, J. M. Mhyre, G. A. Mashour, J. M. Blum, E. C. Yen, and A. L. Rosenberg Improvement in the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Among General Anesthesiology Journals 2000 to 2006: A 6-Year Follow-Up Anesth. Analg., June 1, 2009; 108(6): 1916 - 1921. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. Mhyre, M. L. V. H. Greenfield, L. C. Tsen, and L. S. Polley A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials That Evaluate Strategies to Avoid Epidural Vein Cannulation During Obstetric Epidural Catheter Placement Anesth. Analg., April 1, 2009; 108(4): 1232 - 1242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. W. Schultheis, L. L. Mathis, R. A. Roca, A. F. Simone, S. H. Hertz, and B. A. Rappaport Pediatric drug development in anesthesiology: an FDA perspective. Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2006; 103(1): 49 - 51. [Full Text] [PDF]