+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials in high-impact ophthalmology journals and general medical journals: a systematic review



Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials in high-impact ophthalmology journals and general medical journals: a systematic review



British Journal of Ophthalmology 101(10): 1309-1314



Evidence-based treatments in ophthalmology are often based on the results of randomised controlled trials. Biased conclusions from randomised controlled trials may lead to inappropriate management recommendations. This systematic review investigates the prevalence of bias risk in randomised controlled trials published in high-impact ophthalmology journals and ophthalmology trials from general medical journals. Using Ovid MEDLINE, randomised controlled trials in the top 10 high-impact ophthalmology journals in 2015 were systematically identified and critically appraised for the prevalence of bias risk. Included randomised controlled trials were assessed in all domains of bias as defined by the Cochrane Collaboration. In addition, the prevalence of conflict of interest and industry sponsorship was investigated. A comparison with ophthalmology articles from high-impact general medical journals was performed. Of the 259 records that were screened from ophthalmology-specific journals, 119 trials met all inclusion criteria and were critically appraised. In total, 29.4% of domains had an unclear risk, 13.8% had a high risk and 56.8% had a low risk of bias. In comparison, ophthalmology articles from general medical journals had a lower prevalence of unclear risk (17.1%), higher prevalence of high risk (21.9%) and a higher prevalence of low risk domains (61.9%). Furthermore, 64.7% of critically appraised trials from ophthalmology-specific journals did not report any conflicts of interest, while 70.6% did not report an industry sponsor of their trial. In closing, it is essential that authors, peer reviewers and readers closely follow published risk of bias guidelines.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 060211612

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 28659390

DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-310313


Related references

Evidence for risk of bias in cluster randomised trials: review of recent trials published in three general medical journals. BMJ 327(7418): 785-789, 2003

Trends in High-Impact Neurosurgical Randomized Controlled Trials Published in General Medical Journals: A Systematic Review. World Neurosurgery 2019, 2019

Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. JAMA 297(11): 1233-1240, 2007

Eligibility Criteria of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High-Impact General Medical Journals: A Systematic Sampling Review. Yearbook of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery 2008: 268-269, 2008

Are reports of randomized controlled trials improving over time? A systematic review of 284 articles published in high-impact general and specialized medical journals. Plos One 8(12): E84779, 2014

Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Systematic Reviews 1: 60, 2012

Rating and ranking of medical journals: a randomised controlled evaluation of impact factor and number of listed journals. Klinische Padiatrie 224(1): 43-50, 2012

Reporting characteristics and risk of bias in randomised controlled trials of acupuncture analgesia published in PubMed-listed journals. Acupuncture in Medicine 35(4): 259-267, 2017

Trends in Foot and Ankle Studies Published in High-Impact General Medical Journals: A Systematic Review. Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery 2019, 2019

Data fabrication and other reasons for non-random sampling in 5087 randomised, controlled trials in anaesthetic and general medical journals. Anaesthesia 72(8): 944-952, 2017

Identification and description of controlled clinical trials published in Spanish Gynaecology and Obstetrics journals and risk of bias assessment of trials on assisted reproductive techniques. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 203: 5-11, 2017

P-values in baseline tables of randomised controlled trials are inappropriate but still common in high impact journals. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology 19(2): 231-232, 2013

Systematic review: Outcome reporting bias is a problem in high impact factor neurology journals. Plos One 12(7): E0180986, 2017

Magnitude of effects in clinical trials published in high-impact general medical journals. International Journal of Epidemiology 40(5): 1280-1291, 2012

Information on adverse events in randomised clinical trials assessing drug interventions published in four medical journals with high impact factors. International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine 26(1): 9-22, 2014