This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (23)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Journalology/ Peer Review/ Authorship  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Alert me on articles by topic

A Comparison of Placebo-Controlled Trials Published in English or German

Christoph A. Junker, MD, MSc

JAMA. 1998;280:247-249.

Context.— Although standards of reporting randomized controlled trials are well established internationally, essential study elements continue to be omitted, which hampers interpretation and systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Objective.— To identify deficiencies in the quality of reporting of placebo-controlled randomized trials published in German or English.

Design.— Observational study comparing 32 German- and 89 English-language reports of placebo-controlled trials with parallel design, published by the same group of authors between 1985 and 1994.

Main Outcome Measure.— High reporting quality, defined as adherence to published standards and measured by an 18-item scale based on 2 standard guidelines.

Results.— The mean quality score was 8.4 (SD, 3.0; range, 1-16) of 18. The difference of the mean quality scores between English-language reports compared with German-language reports was small (0.27; 95% confidence interval, -0.97 to 1.52). More articles reported clinical aspects than trial methods or statistics.

Conclusion.— There is room for improvement in the reporting of placebo-controlled randomized trials for both English and German reports.

From the Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland.

RELATED ARTICLE

July 15, 1998
JAMA. 1998;280(3):303-304.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The intention-to-treat approach in randomized controlled trials: Are authors saying what they do and doing what they say?
Gravel et al.
Clin Trials 2007;4:350-356.
ABSTRACT  

Improving the quality of reporting randomized controlled trials in cardiothoracic surgery: The way forward.
Tiruvoipati et al.
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2006;132:233-240.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Reporting in the Primary Treatment of Brain Tumors
Lai et al.
JCO 2006;24:1136-1144.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Review of the True Methodological Quality of Nutritional Support Trials Conducted in the Critically Ill: Time for Improvement
Doig et al.
Anesth. Analg. 2005;100:527-533.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Quality of Abstracts Describing Randomized Trials in the Proceedings of American Society of Clinical Oncology Meetings: Guidelines for Improved Reporting
Krzyzanowska et al.
JCO 2004;22:1993-1999.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Moving Lines and Variable Criteria: Differences/Connections between Allopathic and Alternative Medicine
FROHOCK
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 2002;583:214-232.
ABSTRACT  

Quality of Reporting of Randomized Trials as a Measure of Methodologic Quality
Huwiler-Muntener et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2801-2804.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Reporting Number Needed to Treat and Absolute Risk Reduction in Randomized Controlled Trials
Nuovo et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2813-2814.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The CONSORT Statement: Will It Lead to Improved Reporting of Clinical Trials in Ophthalmology?
Hawkins
Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117:677-680.
FULL TEXT  

Evidence on peer review---scientific quality control or smokescreen?
Goldbeck-Wood
BMJ 1999;318:44-45.
FULL TEXT  

Peer Review in Prague
Rennie
JAMA 1998;280:214-215.
FULL TEXT