Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2000

Open Access 01-04-2000 | Commentary

Current Controlled Trials: an opportunity to help improve the quality of clinical research

Author: Iain Chalmers

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2000

Login to get access

Abstract

Some problems with the quality of controlled clinical trials can be addressed by following these procedures: registering all trials at inception; using systematic reviews to inform the design of new studies; posting and obtaining feedback on preprints; reporting all well conducted trials, regardless of their results; reducing biased and inefficient assessment of reports submitted for publication; publishing sufficiently detailed reports; linking trial reports to relevant external information; providing readier access to reports; and reviewing and amending reports after initial publication. The launch of a new range of electronic journals by Current Controlled Trials offers an opportunity to contribute to progress in these ways.
Literature
1.
2.
Chalmers I, Grant AM: Salutary lessons from the Collaborative Eclampsia Trial. Evidence-Based Medicine January/February. 1996, 39-40.
3.
Eclampsia Trial Collaborative Group : Eclampsia Trial Collaborative Group: Which anticonvulsant for women with eclampsia? Evidence from the Collaborative Eclampsia Trial. Lancet. 1995, 345: 1455-1463. 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)91034-4.CrossRef
4.
5.
Angus DC, Birmingham MC, Balk RA, Scannon PJ, Collins D, Kruse JA, Graham DR, Dedhia HV, Homann S, MacIntyre N: E5 murine monoclonal antiendotoxin antibody in gram-negative sepsis: a randomized controlled trial. E5 Study Investigators. JAMA. 2000, 283: 1723-1730. 10.1001/jama.283.13.1723.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Frederickson DS: Sorting out the doctor's bag. Control Clin Trials. 1980, 1: 263-267. 10.1016/0197-2456(80)90006-9.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Psaty BM, Weiss NS, Furberg CD, Koepsell TD, Siscovick DS, Rosendaal FR, Smith NL, Heckbert SR, Kaplan RC, Lin D, Fleming TR, Wagner EH: Surrogate end points, health outcomes, and the drug-approval process for the treatment of risk factors for cardiovascular disease. JAMA. 1999, 282: 786-790. 10.1001/jama.282.8.786.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Furberg CD: Effect of antiarrhythmic drugs on mortality after myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 1983, 52: 32C-36C.CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Teo KK, Yusuf S, Furberg CD: Effects of prophylactic antiarrhythmic drug therapy in acute myocardial infarction. An overview of results from randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 1993, 270: 1589-1595. 10.1001/jama.270.13.1589.CrossRefPubMed
11.
MacMahon S, Collins R, Peto R, Koster RW, Yusuf S: Effects of prophylactic lidocaine in suspected acute myocardial infarction. An overview of results from the randomized, controlled trials. JAMA. 1988, 260: 1910-1916. 10.1001/jama.260.13.1910.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Hine LK, Laird N, Hewitt P, Chalmers TC: Meta-analytic evidence against prophylactic use of lidocaine in acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med. 1989, 149: 2694-2698. 10.1001/archinte.149.12.2694.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Clarke M, Chalmers I: Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals: islands in search of continents?. JAMA. 1998, 280: 280-282. 10.1001/jama.280.3.280.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Cowley AJ, Skene A, Stainer , Hampton JR: The effect of lorcainide on arrhythmias and survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiol. 1993, 40: 161-166.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Godlee F, Dickersin K: Bias, subjectivity, chance, and conflict of interest in editorial decisions. In: Peer review in health sciences. Edited by Godlee F and Jefferson T. London: BMJ Books,. 1999, 57-78.
16.
Weatherall D: Academia and industry: increasingly uneasy bedfellows. Lancet. 2000, 355: 1574-10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02211-X.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Angell M: Is academic medicine for sale?. N Engl J Med . 2000, 342: 1516-1518. 10.1056/NEJM200005183422009.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Horton R: North and South: bridging the information gap. Lancet. 2000, 355: 2231-2236. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02414-4.CrossRefPubMed
19.
ISIS-2 Collaborative Group : Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. Lancet. 1988, ii: 349-360.
20.
Rogers J, Kirby LC, Hempelman SR, Berry DL, McGeer PL, Kaszniak AW, Zalinski J, Cofield M, Mansukhani L, Willson P: Clinical trial of indomethacin in Alzheimer's disease. Neurology. 1993, 43: 1609-1611.CrossRefPubMed
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Relman AS: Publications and promotions for the clinical investigator. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1979, 25: 673-676.CrossRefPubMed
27.
MacKillop WJ, Palmer MJ, O'Sullivan B, Ward GK, Steele R, Dotsikas G: Clinical trials in cancer: the role of surrogate patients in defining what constitutes an ethically acceptable clinical experiment. Br J Cancer. 1989, 59: 388-395.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
28.
Chalmers I, Altman DG: How can medical journals help prevent poor medical research? Some opportunities presented by electronic publishing. Lancet. 1999, 353: 490-493. 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07618-1.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Horton R, Smith R: Time to register randomised trials. Lancet. 1999, 354: 1138-1139. 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)00328-1.CrossRefPubMed
30.
31.
32.
33.
Editorial. Safeguarding participants in clinical trials. Lancet. 2000, 355: 2177-10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02393-X.
34.
O'Toole L: Using systematically synthesised evidence to inform the funding of new clinical trials - the UK Medical Research Council approach. Paper presented at the 6th Cochrane Colloquium, Baltimore, 22-26 October. 1998
35.
Goldbeck-Wood S: Denmark takes lead on research ethics. BMJ. 1998, 316: 1189-.PubMed
36.
37.
McConnell J, Horton R: Lancet electronic research archive in international health and eprint server. Lancet. 1999, 354: 2-3. 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)00226-3.CrossRefPubMed
38.
39.
Horton R: Pardonable revisions and protocol reviews. Lancet. 1997, 349: 6-10.1016/S0140-6736(97)02336-2.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Wager E, Tumas JA, Field EA, Glazer NB, Schulz G, Grossman L: Improving the conduct and reporting of clinical trials. JAMA. 2000, 283: 2788-2789.PubMed
41.
Godlee F, Jefferson T: Introduction. In: Peer review in health sciences. Edited by Godlee F, Jefferson T. London: BMJ Books. 1999, xi-xv.
42.
Rennie D, Knoll E, Flanagin A: The international congress on peer review in biomedical publication. JAMA. 1989, 261: 749-10.1001/jama.261.5.749.CrossRefPubMed
43.
CONSORT Group: Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996, 276: 637-639.CrossRef
44.
Stewart LA, Clarke M: Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Statistics in Medicine. 1995, 14: 2057-2079.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Johnson A: Ease-ing out of Tours. 7th EASE Conference Newsletter. 2000, 1: 3-
46.
Metadata
Title
Current Controlled Trials: an opportunity to help improve the quality of clinical research
Author
Iain Chalmers
Publication date
01-04-2000
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2000
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/cvm-1-1-003

Other articles of this Issue 1/2000

Trials 1/2000 Go to the issue

Commentary

Implications of recent hypertension trials for the generalist physician: whom do we treat, and how?

Commentary

Medical errors: how the US Government is addressing the problem

Commentary

Debate: When should we intervene in unstable angina - Time for an old look?

Research

Design of a trial evaluating myocardial cell protection with cariporide, an inhibitor of the transmembrane sodium-hydrogen exchanger: the Guard During Ischemia Against Necrosis (GUARDIAN) trial

Commentary

Noninferiority trials

Commentary

Debate: Subgroup analyses in clinical trials: fun to look at - but don't believe them!