Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 499

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reporting on Methods in Clinical Trials

DerSimonian, Rebecca, Charette, L.Joseph, McPeek, Bucknam, Mosteller, Frederick·1982·New England Journal of Medicine
DOI 10.1056/nejm198206033062204
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm198206033062204

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
DerSimonian, R., Charette, L. J., McPeek, B., & Mosteller, F.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Publisher
Massachusetts Medical Society
Published
1982-06-03
Volume
306
Issue
22
Pages
1332-1337
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
DOI
10.1056/nejm198206033062204
OpenAlex
W2121361638
Cited by
499
References
2
FWCI
46.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.