rss
J Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55:569-572 doi:10.1136/jech.55.8.569
  • Research report

Participation of epidemiologists and/or biostatisticians and methodological quality of published controlled clinical trials

  1. M Delgado-Rodrigueza,b,
  2. M Ruiz-Canelab,
  3. J De Irala-Estevezb,
  4. J Llorcac,
  5. M A Martinez-Gonzalezb
  1. aDivision of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Jaén School of Environmental Sciences, Spain, bDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Navarra School of Medicine, Spain, cDivision of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Cantabria School of Medicine, Spain
  1. Dr Delgado-Rodríguez, Cátedra de Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Edificio B-3, Universidad de Jaén , 23071-Jaén, Spain (mdelgado{at}ujaen.es)
  • Accepted 15 March 2001

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE This study assessed several methodological aspects related to the quality of published controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in relation to the participation of an epidemiologist/biostatistician (E/B).

DESIGN Handsearch of CCTs published in four medical leading journals for 1993–1995.

METHODS Quality variables, abstracted from a review, were related to authors' specialties. Five hundred and ninety four CCTs were identified via a hand search. The department/unit membership was used to attribute authors' specialties. Of 594 CCTs identified, in 127 the authors' specialties could not be known, leaving 467 trials for analysis.

RESULTS E/B participation occurred in 178 trials (38.1%). This participation was more frequent in multicentric, bigger, and in those trials describing any funding agency. These factors were controlled for in the analysis. E/B participation was positively associated with pre-study sample size estimation (OR = 1.5, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.0, 2.3), with reporting the dates for starting/ending the study (OR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.4, 3.3), with using an objectively assessed outcome (OR = 2.4, 95% CI 1.2, 4.6) and with the intention to treat principle (OR = 2.0, 95% CI 1.3, 3.0). The overall quality score was higher in trials where E/B participated.

CONCLUSIONS The results suggest that E/B improve the quality (at least of reports) of clinical trials. Given that quality of research is frequently used to evaluate potential sources of heterogeneity between trials, these results are relevant for meta-analysis.

Footnotes

  • Funding: this work was funded by a fellowship from the Association of Friends of University of Navarre.

  • Conflicts of interest: none.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Social bookmarking

Register for free content


Free sample
 This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of JECH.
View free sample issue >>

Free archive
The full back archive is now available for JECH. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006, back to volume 1 issue 1.
Register to access the free archive >>

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.