Cited by 104Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Adequacy of Published Oncology Randomized Controlled Trials to Provide Therapeutic Details Needed for Clinical Application

Open access
Duff, Jennifer M., Leather, Helen, Walden, Edmund O., LaPlant, Kourtney D., George, Thomas J.·2010·JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) improve clinical care through evidence-based results. Guidelines exist for RCT result reporting, but specific details of therapeutic administration promote clinical application and reproduction of the trial design. We assess the reporting methodology in RCTs published in major oncology journals. METHODS: Ten essential elements of RCT reporting were identified and included drug name, dose, route, cycle length, maximum number of cycles, premedication, growth factor support, patient monitoring parameters, and dosing adjustments for hematologic and organ-specific toxicity. All therapy-based oncology RCTs published between 2005 and 2008 in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO), Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI), Blood, and Cancer were analyzed for inclusion of these 10 elements. RESULTS: Of 339 identified articles, 262 were included in the final analysis (165 from JCO, 31 from NEJM, 27 from Cancer, 20 from JNCI, and 19 from Blood). Premedication, growth factor support, and dose adjustments for toxicities were each reported less than half of the time. Only 30 articles (11%) met the main objective of complete data reporting (ie, all 10 essential elements) and was highest in JNCI (5/20; 25%), followed by Cancer (5/27; 18%), JCO (18/165; 11%), Blood (1/19; 5%), and NEJM (1/31; 3%). The presence of an online appendix did not substantially improve complete reporting. CONCLUSIONS: RCTs published in major oncology journals do not consistently report essential therapeutic details necessary for translation of the trial findings to clinical practice. Potential solutions to improve reporting include modification of submission guidelines, use of online appendices, and providing open access to trial protocols.

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 · 10.1093/jnci/djq117

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. McNiff K. The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative. J Oncol Pract. 2006;2(1):26-30.
  2. Cohen MR, Anderson RW, Attilio RM, et al. Preventing medications er- rors in cancer chemotherapy. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1996;53(7): 737-746.
  3. Cancer: Instructions for Authors. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/home pages/28741/cncr_instrux.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2009.
  4. Journal of Clinical Oncology: Manuscript Preparation Guidelines. http://jco.as copubs.org/ifc/prepguide.dtl. Accessed March 14, 2009.
  5. The New England Journal of Medicine: Author Center Help: Instructions for Submitting a New Manuscript. http://authors.nejm.org/help/NewMs.asp. Accessed March 14, 2009.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Duff, J. M., Leather, H., Walden, E. O., LaPlant, K. D., & George, T. J.
Affiliations
University of Florida Health (US)
Venue
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2010-05-19
Volume
102
Issue
10
Pages
702-705
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2118828017
Cited by
103
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 3
FWCI
7.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (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
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Keywords
trial reporting quality, route of administration, premedication, growth factor support, translation to clinical practice, reporting guidelines
MeSH terms
Clinical Protocols, Humans, Medical Oncology, Neoplasms, Periodicals as Topic, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Reproducibility of Results, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Guidelines as Topic, Journalism, Medical, Evidence-Based Medicine, Benchmarking, Access to Information

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