Cited by 436Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsDelphi Technique in Research

Assessing the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials:Current Issues and Future Directions

Moher, David, Jadad, Alejandro R., Tugwell, Peter·1996·International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

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

Crossref · 10.1017/s0266462300009570

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?

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
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