
doi: 10.1002/art1.10218
pmid: 11932881
AbstractObjectiveTo appraise systematically randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on systemic sclerosis (SSc) in order to determine whether the parameter of study design and its quality may influence the reporting of efficacy for tested interventions.MethodsSeventy RCTs were analyzed (1965–2000) in terms of design, patient characteristics, outcomes, and reported results.ResultsMedian sample size was 28 patients. Fifty‐nine trials were double blind, but only 16 mentioned the randomization mode and only 7 described allocation concealment. There was sufficient information on withdrawals in 37 trials. Larger trials with longer followup scored higher on quality characteristics, but had higher withdrawal rates. Only 8 trials had a followup of more than 1 year. Significant efficacy was less likely to be reported in double‐blind studies (P = 0.029) and in studies with larger rates of withdrawal (P = 0.032). Specification of the following parameters improved over time: power calculations (P = 0.0003), outcomes (P = 0.001), and sample size per arm (P = 0.011).ConclusionsSeveral aspects of the quality of design and conduct of SSc RCTs can be improved. Adequately powered trials with longer followup and clear outcomes are needed.
Male, Quality Control, Scleroderma, Systemic, Time Factors, Databases, Factual, Middle Aged, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/*methods/standards, Scleroderma, Systemic/*therapy, Double-Blind Method, Research Design, Sample Size, Humans, Female, Research Design/standards/*trends, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Male, Quality Control, Scleroderma, Systemic, Time Factors, Databases, Factual, Middle Aged, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/*methods/standards, Scleroderma, Systemic/*therapy, Double-Blind Method, Research Design, Sample Size, Humans, Female, Research Design/standards/*trends, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 16 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
