Comparison of Meeting Abstracts and Subsequent Articles
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
To the Editor: In their study evaluating the degree of consistency between meeting abstract and subsequent full-length journal article, Dr Toma and colleagues1 found discrepancies between the efficacy estimate for the primary outcome in 60 (41%) of the 148 randomized controlled trials. This highlights the need for scrutiny of the quality of information from randomized controlled trials.
There is another often neglected issue: the percentage of patients meeting inclusion criteria who actually entered randomization.2 This important index tells a lot about the design and conduct of randomized controlled trials. While it is rare for all eligible patients to be willing to participate in a randomized trial, if the percentage is too low it raises questions about why so many patients would decline to join. Did they or their physicians feel the risk-benefit ratio of joining this trial was unfavorable? Were only those who were most likely to benefit from the . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Chi-Tai Fang, MD, PhD
fangct@ha.mc.ntu.edu.tw
Department of Medical Research
National Taiwan University Hospital
Loreen Y. L. Huang, MD
Institute of Preventive Medicine
College of Public Health
National Taiwan University
Taipei, Taiwan
RELATED ARTICLE
Transition From Meeting Abstract to Full-length Journal Article for Randomized Controlled Trials
Mustafa Toma, Finlay A. McAlister, Liza Bialy, Denise Adams, Ben Vandermeer, and Paul W. Armstrong
JAMA. 2006;295(11):1281-1287.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Reproducible Research: Moving toward Research the Public Can Really Trust
Laine et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2007;146:450-453.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Response to Letters by Whiteley et al and Goldstein et al
Weintraub
Stroke 2006;37:2664-2665.
FULL TEXT
|
