Intended for healthcare professionals

  1. Research
  2. Bad reporting does not...
  3. Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group
Papers

Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group

BMJ 2004; 328 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7430.22 (Published 01 January 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;328:22

Related articles

See more

Cited by...

  • Estimating the prevalence of discrepancies between study registrations and publications: a systematic review and meta-analyses
  • Missing data in randomised controlled trials of rheumatoid arthritis drug therapy are substantial and handled inappropriately
  • Identifying the 'incredible! Part 1: assessing the risk of bias in outcomes included in systematic reviews
  • Design characteristics, risk of bias, and reporting of randomised controlled trials supporting approvals of cancer drugs by European Medicines Agency, 2014-16: cross sectional analysis
  • Treatment targeted at underlying disease versus palliative care in terminally ill patients: a systematic review
  • What is the influence of randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment on treatment effects of physical therapy trials? A meta-epidemiological study
  • Avoidable waste of research related to inadequate methods in clinical trials
  • Identifying Items to Assess Methodological Quality in Physical Therapy Trials: A Factor Analysis
  • Can trial quality be reliably assessed from published reports of cancer trials: evaluation of risk of bias assessments in systematic reviews
  • Impact of single centre status on estimates of intervention effects in trials with continuous outcomes: meta-epidemiological study
  • The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed
  • The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration
  • Improving the Methodologic and Ethical Validity of Best Supportive Care Studies in Oncology: Lessons From a Systematic Review
  • Quality of randomised trials in COPD
  • The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study
  • Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols
  • Evolution of the Randomized Controlled Trial in Oncology Over Three Decades
  • Improving the Quality of Abstract Reporting for Phase I Cancer Trials
  • Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study
  • A systematic review of the quality of publications reporting coronary artery bypass grafting trials
  • Reporting of radiographic methods in randomised controlled trials assessing structural outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis
  • Treatment Tolerance and Efficacy in Geriatric Oncology: A Systematic Review of Phase III Randomized Trials Conducted by Five National Cancer Institute-Sponsored Cooperative Groups
  • Navigated Total Knee Replacement: A Meta-Analysis
  • Collaborative care for depression in primary care: Making sense of a complex intervention: systematic review and meta-regression
  • Authors' reply
  • Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Reporting in the Primary Treatment of Brain Tumors
  • Are experimental treatments for cancer in children superior to established treatments? Observational study of randomised controlled trials by the Children's Oncology Group
  • Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: cohort study
  • Effect on Health-Related Outcomes of Interventions to Alter the Interaction Between Patients and Practitioners: A Systematic Review of Trials
  • Quality of randomised controlled trials: Quality of trial methods is not good in all disciplines
Back to top