The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Number, Quality, and Coverage of Randomized Controlled Trials in Nephrology
Abstract
Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are the optimal study design to answer intervention questions. The authors evaluated the number, quality, and coverage of RCT in nephrology. MEDLINE was searched using the relevant medical subject headings for nephrology and 12 major specialties in internal medicine, limited by "randomized controlled trial" as a publication type. A random selection of 160 RCT in nephrology (40 for each decade) published since 1966 and an additional 270 RCT from ongoing or published Cochrane systematic reviews in various areas of nephrology, dialysis, and transplantation were evaluated for quality of reporting using standard criteria. The number of RCT published in nephrology from 1966 to 2002 (2779) is fewer than all other specialties of internal medicine (range: 5335 in hematology to 27109 in cardiology) with the proportion of all citations which are RCT being the third lowest (1.15%). There has been an increase in both indices from 1966 to 1996, but not at a greater rate than other specialties, and there has been no increase over the past 5 yr. Some areas of nephrology, in particular glomerulonephritis, are clear outliers with very low numbers of RCT to guide clinical decision-making. Overall the quality of RCT reporting in nephrology is low and has not improved over the past 30 yr with unclear allocation concealment (89%), lack of reported blinding of outcome assessors (92%), and failure to perform "intention-to-treat analysis" (50%) particularly frequent. The challenges of improving the quality and quantity of trials in nephrology are substantial, but they can be overcome by using standard guidelines and checklists for trial reporting, greater attention to the trial methods and not just the results, involving experts in trial design and reporting, multicenter collaboration, and larger and simpler trials.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04337-3 · Cited by 5,373
Moher, D., Pham, B., Jones, A., Cook, D. J., Jadad, A. R., Moher, M., Tugwell, P., & Klassen, T. P. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(98)01085-x · Cited by 3,560
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-1-2 · Cited by 2,755
Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review
Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y., & Gross, C. P. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.289.4.454 · Cited by 1,816
Balk, E. M. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.287.22.2973 · Cited by 478
Devereaux, P. J. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.285.15.2000 · Cited by 258
Schulz, K. F., Grimes, D. A., Altman, D. G., & Hayes, R. J. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7033.742 · Cited by 163
Cited by
Levey, A. S., & Coresh, J. (2012) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60178-5 · Cited by 1,841
Levey, A. S., Inker, L. A., Matsushita, K., Greene, T., Willis, K., Lewis, E., de Zeeuw, D., Cheung, A. K., & Coresh, J. (2014) · American Journal of Kidney Diseases · doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2014.07.030 · Cited by 620
Palmer, S. C., Craig, J. C., Navaneethan, S. D., Tonelli, M., Pellegrini, F., & Strippoli, G. F. M. (2012) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-157-4-201208210-00007 · Cited by 359
Self-citationSetting Research Priorities for Patients on or Nearing Dialysis
Manns, B., Hemmelgarn, B., Lillie, E., Dip, S. C. P. G., Cyr, A., Gladish, M., Large, C., Silverman, H., Toth, B., Wolfs, W., et al. (2014) · Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · doi:10.2215/cjn.01610214 · Cited by 310
Charytan, D., & Kuntz, R. E. (2006) · Kidney International · doi:10.1038/sj.ki.5001934 · Cited by 271
Metadata
- Authors
- Strippoli, G. F. M., Craig, J. C., & Schena, F. P.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
- Published
- 2004-02
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 411-419
- ISSN
- 1046-6673 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2148195379
- Cited by
- 343
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 13.03
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Number, Quality, and Coverage of Randomized Controlled Trials in Nephrology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.asn.0000100125.21491.46
- The paper
- Strippoli, G. F. M., Craig, J. C., & Schena, F. P. (2004). The Number, Quality, and Coverage of Randomized Controlled Trials in Nephrology. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.asn.0000100125.21491.46
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.