DerSimonian R, Charette L J, McPeek B, Mosteller F
N Engl J Med. 1982 Jun 3;306(22):1332-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198206033062204.
A clinical trial cannot be adequately interpreted without information about the methods used in the design of the study and the analysis of the results. To determine the frequency of reporting what we consider 11 important aspects of design and analysis, we surveyed all 67 clinical trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, and the British Medical Journal from July through December 1979 and in the Journal of the American Medical Association from July 1979 through June 1980. Of all 11 items in the 67 trials published in all four journals, 56 per cent were clearly reported, 10 per cent were ambiguously mentioned, and 34 per cent were not reported at all. At least 80 per cent of the 67 trials reported information about statistical analyses, statistical methods used, and random allocation of subjects, yet only 19 per cent reported the method of randomization. Loss to follow-up was discussed in 79 per cent of the articles, treatment complications in 64 per cent, and admission of subjects before allocation in 57 per cent, but eligibility criteria for admission to the trial appeared in only 37 per cent. Although information about whether patients were blind to treatment was given in 55 per cent, information about whether there was blind assessment of outcome was reported in only 30 per cent. The statistical power of the trial to detect treatment effects was discussed in only 12 per cent of the articles. The clinical trials published in The New England Journal of Medicine reported 71 per cent of the 11 items, those in the Journal of the American Medical Association 63 per cent, those in the British Medical Journal 52 per cent, and those in the Lancet 46 per cent. These rates are significantly different (P less than 0.001). We recommend that editors improve the reporting of clinical trials by giving authors a list of the important items to be reported.
如果没有关于研究设计和结果分析所采用方法的信息,就无法对一项临床试验进行充分解读。为了确定在设计和分析中我们认为重要的11个方面的报告频率,我们调查了1979年7月至12月发表在《新英格兰医学杂志》《柳叶刀》和《英国医学杂志》以及1979年7月至1980年6月发表在《美国医学会杂志》上的所有67项临床试验。在这四种期刊发表的67项试验中的所有11项内容中,56%有明确报告,10%有模糊提及,34%根本未报告。67项试验中至少80%报告了有关统计分析、所使用的统计方法以及受试者的随机分配情况,但只有19%报告了随机化方法。79%的文章讨论了失访情况,64%讨论了治疗并发症,57%讨论了分配前受试者的入选情况,但只有37%提及了试验入选的合格标准。虽然55%的文章给出了患者是否对治疗不知情的信息,但只有30%报告了是否对结果进行盲法评估的信息。只有12%的文章讨论了试验检测治疗效果的统计学效力。发表在《新英格兰医学杂志》上的临床试验报告了11项内容中的71%,发表在《美国医学会杂志》上的为63%,发表在《英国医学杂志》上的为52%,发表在《柳叶刀》上的为46%。这些比例有显著差异(P小于0.001)。我们建议编辑通过向作者提供一份应报告的重要项目清单来改进临床试验的报告。