Cited by 271Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsscientometrics and bibliometrics researchHealth Sciences Research and Education

Developing a database of published reports of randomised clinical trials in pain research 1

Jadad, Alejandro R., Carroll, Dawn, Moore, Andrew, McQuay, Henry·1996·Pain

Abstract

A database of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in pain research published from 1950 to 1990 was created following an extensive literature search. By applying a refined MEDLINE search strategy from 1966 to 1990 and by hand-searching more than 1,000,000 pages of a total of 40 biomedical journals published during the period 1950-1990, more than 8000 RCTs were identified. The RCTs were published in more than 800 journals and over 85% appeared between 1976 and 1990. If the trend of the last 15 years persists, a total of more than 15 000 RCTs will be published in pain relief by the year 2000. A detailed description of methods to ensure efficient use of resources during the identification, retrieval and management of the information in pain relief and other fields is given. Emphasis is made on the importance of refining MEDLINE search strategies, on the use of volunteers to hand-search journals and on careful monitoring of each of the steps of the process. The potential uses of the database to guide clinical and research decisions are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0304-3959(96)03033-3

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Study quality was judged by proper conduct of randomization, concealment of treatment allocation, similarity of treatment groups at baseline, provision of eligibility criteria, completeness of follow-up, and use of intention-to-treat analysis, and quantified using the Jadad score.

    “Study quality was judged by the proper conduct of randomization, concealment of treatment allocation, similarity of treatment groups at baseline, the provision of a description of the eligibility criteria, completeness of follow-up, and use of intention-to-treat analysis, and was quantified using the Jadad score (26).”

    From Effects of Fibrates in Kidney Disease (2012) · cites this paper as [26]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jadad, A. R., Carroll, D., Moore, A., & McQuay, H.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
Pain
Published
1996-08
Volume
66
Issue
2
Pages
239-246
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2092890771
Cited by
271
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 20
FWCI
18.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
randomized controlled trials, pain research, analgesia, MEDLINE search strategy, bibliographic databases, information retrieval, history of pain research, biomedical journals
MeSH terms
Information Systems, Medical Informatics Computing, Pain, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Databases, Bibliographic, MEDLINE, Pain Management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review