Trustworthiness of randomized trials in endocrinology—A systematic survey

José Gerardo González-González, Edgar Gerardo Dorsey-Treviño, Neri Alvarez-Villalobos, Francisco Jesús Barrera-Flores, Alejandro Díaz González-Colmenero, Carolina Quintanilla-Sánchez, Victor Manuel Montori, Rene Rodriguez-Gutierrez

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Trustworthy (i.e. low risk of bias) randomized clinical trials (RCTs) play an important role in evidence-based decision making. We aimed to systematically assess the risk of bias of trials published in high-impact endocrinology journals. Methods We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed database between 2014 and 2016 for phase 2–4 RCTs evaluating endocrine-related therapies. Reviewers working independently and in duplicate used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (CCRBT) to determine the extent to which the methods reported protected the results of each RCT from bias. Results We assessed 292 eligible RCTs, of which 40% (116) were judged to be at low risk, 43% (126) at moderate, and 17% (50) at high risk of bias. Blinding of outcome assessment was the least common domain reported 43% (125), while selective reporting of outcomes was the most common 97% (282). In multivariable analysis, RCTs with a parallel design (OR 2.4; 95% CI; 1.2–4.6) and funded by for-profit sources (OR 2.2; 95% CI; 1.3–3.6) were more likely to be at low risk of bias. Conclusions Trustworthy evidence should ultimately shape care to improve the likelihood of desirable patient outcomes. Six out-of 10 RCTs published in top endocrine journals are at moderate/ high-risk of bias. Improving this should be a priority in endocrine research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere0212360
JournalPloS one
Volume14
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2019

Fingerprint

randomized clinical trials
Randomized Controlled Trials
Endocrinology
endocrinology
Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed
MEDLINE
profits and margins
decision making
Decision Making
Profitability
Decision making
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Databases
therapeutics
methodology
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)

Cite this

González-González, J. G., Dorsey-Treviño, E. G., Alvarez-Villalobos, N., Barrera-Flores, F. J., González-Colmenero, A. D., Quintanilla-Sánchez, C., ... Rodriguez-Gutierrez, R. (2019). Trustworthiness of randomized trials in endocrinology—A systematic survey. PloS one, 14(2), [e0212360]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212360

Trustworthiness of randomized trials in endocrinology—A systematic survey. / González-González, José Gerardo; Dorsey-Treviño, Edgar Gerardo; Alvarez-Villalobos, Neri; Barrera-Flores, Francisco Jesús; González-Colmenero, Alejandro Díaz; Quintanilla-Sánchez, Carolina; Montori, Victor Manuel; Rodriguez-Gutierrez, Rene.

In: PloS one, Vol. 14, No. 2, e0212360, 01.02.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

González-González, JG, Dorsey-Treviño, EG, Alvarez-Villalobos, N, Barrera-Flores, FJ, González-Colmenero, AD, Quintanilla-Sánchez, C, Montori, VM & Rodriguez-Gutierrez, R 2019, 'Trustworthiness of randomized trials in endocrinology—A systematic survey', PloS one, vol. 14, no. 2, e0212360. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212360
González-González JG, Dorsey-Treviño EG, Alvarez-Villalobos N, Barrera-Flores FJ, González-Colmenero AD, Quintanilla-Sánchez C et al. Trustworthiness of randomized trials in endocrinology—A systematic survey. PloS one. 2019 Feb 1;14(2). e0212360. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212360
González-González, José Gerardo ; Dorsey-Treviño, Edgar Gerardo ; Alvarez-Villalobos, Neri ; Barrera-Flores, Francisco Jesús ; González-Colmenero, Alejandro Díaz ; Quintanilla-Sánchez, Carolina ; Montori, Victor Manuel ; Rodriguez-Gutierrez, Rene. / Trustworthiness of randomized trials in endocrinology—A systematic survey. In: PloS one. 2019 ; Vol. 14, No. 2.
@article{29be3175d8054a69bc2607e14115e063,
title = "Trustworthiness of randomized trials in endocrinology—A systematic survey",
abstract = "Background Trustworthy (i.e. low risk of bias) randomized clinical trials (RCTs) play an important role in evidence-based decision making. We aimed to systematically assess the risk of bias of trials published in high-impact endocrinology journals. Methods We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed database between 2014 and 2016 for phase 2–4 RCTs evaluating endocrine-related therapies. Reviewers working independently and in duplicate used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (CCRBT) to determine the extent to which the methods reported protected the results of each RCT from bias. Results We assessed 292 eligible RCTs, of which 40{\%} (116) were judged to be at low risk, 43{\%} (126) at moderate, and 17{\%} (50) at high risk of bias. Blinding of outcome assessment was the least common domain reported 43{\%} (125), while selective reporting of outcomes was the most common 97{\%} (282). In multivariable analysis, RCTs with a parallel design (OR 2.4; 95{\%} CI; 1.2–4.6) and funded by for-profit sources (OR 2.2; 95{\%} CI; 1.3–3.6) were more likely to be at low risk of bias. Conclusions Trustworthy evidence should ultimately shape care to improve the likelihood of desirable patient outcomes. Six out-of 10 RCTs published in top endocrine journals are at moderate/ high-risk of bias. Improving this should be a priority in endocrine research.",
author = "Gonz{\'a}lez-Gonz{\'a}lez, {Jos{\'e} Gerardo} and Dorsey-Trevi{\~n}o, {Edgar Gerardo} and Neri Alvarez-Villalobos and Barrera-Flores, {Francisco Jes{\'u}s} and Gonz{\'a}lez-Colmenero, {Alejandro D{\'i}az} and Carolina Quintanilla-S{\'a}nchez and Montori, {Victor Manuel} and Rene Rodriguez-Gutierrez",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0212360",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Trustworthiness of randomized trials in endocrinology—A systematic survey

AU - González-González, José Gerardo

AU - Dorsey-Treviño, Edgar Gerardo

AU - Alvarez-Villalobos, Neri

AU - Barrera-Flores, Francisco Jesús

AU - González-Colmenero, Alejandro Díaz

AU - Quintanilla-Sánchez, Carolina

AU - Montori, Victor Manuel

AU - Rodriguez-Gutierrez, Rene

PY - 2019/2/1

Y1 - 2019/2/1

N2 - Background Trustworthy (i.e. low risk of bias) randomized clinical trials (RCTs) play an important role in evidence-based decision making. We aimed to systematically assess the risk of bias of trials published in high-impact endocrinology journals. Methods We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed database between 2014 and 2016 for phase 2–4 RCTs evaluating endocrine-related therapies. Reviewers working independently and in duplicate used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (CCRBT) to determine the extent to which the methods reported protected the results of each RCT from bias. Results We assessed 292 eligible RCTs, of which 40% (116) were judged to be at low risk, 43% (126) at moderate, and 17% (50) at high risk of bias. Blinding of outcome assessment was the least common domain reported 43% (125), while selective reporting of outcomes was the most common 97% (282). In multivariable analysis, RCTs with a parallel design (OR 2.4; 95% CI; 1.2–4.6) and funded by for-profit sources (OR 2.2; 95% CI; 1.3–3.6) were more likely to be at low risk of bias. Conclusions Trustworthy evidence should ultimately shape care to improve the likelihood of desirable patient outcomes. Six out-of 10 RCTs published in top endocrine journals are at moderate/ high-risk of bias. Improving this should be a priority in endocrine research.

AB - Background Trustworthy (i.e. low risk of bias) randomized clinical trials (RCTs) play an important role in evidence-based decision making. We aimed to systematically assess the risk of bias of trials published in high-impact endocrinology journals. Methods We searched the MEDLINE/PubMed database between 2014 and 2016 for phase 2–4 RCTs evaluating endocrine-related therapies. Reviewers working independently and in duplicate used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (CCRBT) to determine the extent to which the methods reported protected the results of each RCT from bias. Results We assessed 292 eligible RCTs, of which 40% (116) were judged to be at low risk, 43% (126) at moderate, and 17% (50) at high risk of bias. Blinding of outcome assessment was the least common domain reported 43% (125), while selective reporting of outcomes was the most common 97% (282). In multivariable analysis, RCTs with a parallel design (OR 2.4; 95% CI; 1.2–4.6) and funded by for-profit sources (OR 2.2; 95% CI; 1.3–3.6) were more likely to be at low risk of bias. Conclusions Trustworthy evidence should ultimately shape care to improve the likelihood of desirable patient outcomes. Six out-of 10 RCTs published in top endocrine journals are at moderate/ high-risk of bias. Improving this should be a priority in endocrine research.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061864920&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061864920&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0212360

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0212360

M3 - Article

C2 - 30779814

AN - SCOPUS:85061864920

VL - 14

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 2

M1 - e0212360

ER -