Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists

https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(94)00031-WGet rights and content

Abstract

Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is important and relatively new. Quality gives us an estimate of the likelihood that the results are a valid estimate of the truth. We present an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists developed to assess quality. Twenty-five scales and nine checklists have been developed to assess quality. The checklists are most useful in providing investigators with guidelines as to what information should be included in reporting RCTs. The scales give readers a quantitative index of the likelihood that the reported methodology and results are free of bias. There are several shortcomings with these scales. Future scale development is likely to be most beneficial if questions common to all trials are assessed, if the scale is easy to use, and if it is developed with sufficient rigor.

References (58)

  • DJ Cook et al.

    Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents

    Chest

    (1992)
  • TC Chalmers et al.

    A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial

    Controlled Clin Trials

    (1981)
  • E Andrew

    Method for assessment of the reporting standard of clinical trials with roentgen contrast media

    Acta Radiol Diag

    (1984)
  • SN Goodman et al.

    Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine

    Ann Intern Med

    (1994)
  • H Beckerman et al.

    The efficacy of laser therapy for musculoskeletal and skin disorders

  • SA Brown

    Measurement of quality of primary studies for meta-analysis

    Nursing Res

    (1991)
  • I Chalmers et al.

    A cohort study of summary reports of controlled trials

    JAMA

    (1990)
  • MK Cho et al.

    Instruments for assessing the quality of drug studies published in the medical literature

    JAMA

    (1994)
  • GA Colditz et al.

    How study design affects outcomes in comparison of therapy: I

    Med Stat Med

    (1989)
  • AS Detsky et al.

    Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis

    J Clin Epidemiol

    (1992)
  • M Evans et al.

    A score system for evaluating random control clinical trials of prophylaxis of abdominal surgical wound infection

    Br J Surg

    (1985)
  • P Gøtzsche

    Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis

    Controlled Clin Trials

    (1989)
  • TF Imperiale et al.

    Do corticosteroids reduce mortality from alcoholic hepatitis? A meta-analysis of the randomized trials

    Ann Intern Med

    (1990)
  • AR Jadad-Bechara

    Meta-Analysis of randomised clinical trials in pain relief

  • J Kleijnen et al.

    Clinical trials of homeopathy

    Br Med J

    (1991)
  • BW Koes et al.

    Spinal manipulation and mobilization for back and neck pain: a blinded review

    Br Med J

    (1991)
  • MT Nurmohamed et al.

    Low-molecular-weight heparin versus standard heparin in general and orthopaedic surgery: a meta-analysis

    Lancet

    (1992)
  • P Ongenhenia et al.

    Antidepressants-induced analgesia in chronic non-malignant pain: a meta-analysis of 39 placebo-controlled studies

    Pain

    (1992)
  • T Poynard

    Evaluation de la qualite methodologique des essais therapeutiques randomises

    La Presse Medicale

    (1988)
  • JS Reisch et al.

    Aid to the evaluation of therapeutic studies

    Pediatrics

    (1989)
  • K Smith et al.

    Respiratory muscle training in chronic airflow limitation: a meta-analysis

    Am Rev Resp Dis

    (1992)
  • WO Spitzer et al.

    Links between passive smoking and disease: a best evidence synthesis

    Clin Invest Med

    (1990)
  • J Levine

    Trial Assessment Procedure Scale (TAPS)

    (1980)
  • G Ter Riet et al.

    Acupuncture and chronic pain: a criteria-based meta-analysis

    J Clin Epidemiol

    (1990)
  • RF Badgley

    An assessment of research methods reported in 103 scientific articles from two Canadian medical journals

    Can Med Assoc J

    (1961)
  • JM Bland et al.

    Is the clinical trial evidence about new drugs statistically adequate?

    Br J Clin Pharmacol

    (1985)
  • R DerSimonian et al.

    Reporting on methods in clinical trials

    New Engl J Med

    (1982)
  • MJ Gardner et al.

    Use of check lists in assessing the statistical content of medical studies

  • A Grant

    Reporting clinical trials

    Br J Obstet Gynaecol

    (1989)

    • Cited by (0)

    View full text
    Copyright © 1995 Published by Elsevier Inc.