Assessing the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials:Current Issues and Future Directions
Abstract
Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials is a relatively new and important development. Three approaches have been developed: component, checklist, and scale assessment. Component approaches evaluate selected aspects of trials, such as masking. Checklists and scales involve lists of items thought to be integral to study quality. Scales, unlike the other methods, provide a summary numeric score of quality, which can be formally incorporated into a systematic review. Most scales to date have not been developed with sufficient rigor, however. Empirical evidence indicates that differences in scale development can lead to important differences in quality assessment. Several methods for including quality scores in systematic reviews have been proposed, but since little empirical evidence supports any given method, results must be interpreted cautiously. Future efforts may be best focused on gathering more empirical evidence to identify trial characteristics directly related to bias in the estimates of intervention effects and on improving the way in which trials are reported.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Testing whether claims are valid in their home context is a form of quality assessment.
“Testing whether claims are valid in their home context is a form of quality assessment...something that has been discussed within systematic review since its invention more than a generation ago (Moher et al., 1996)”
From Adding a simple log to in-text citations to strengthen information literacy and argumentation while blocking casual misuse of generative AI (2026) · cites this paper as Moher et al., 1996
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 60 · Cited by 436
- Authors
- Moher, D., Jadad, A. R., & Tugwell, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- McMaster University (CA)
- Venue
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1996
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 195-208
- ISSN
- 0266-4623 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-6348
- OpenAlex
- W2118266607
- Cited by
- 436
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 5.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- quality assessment, randomized controlled trials, quality assessment scale, quality checklist, trial bias, systematic review methodology, trial reporting quality
- MeSH terms
- Systematic Reviews as Topic, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Research Design, Reproducibility of Results, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Guidelines as Topic
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