The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews

Arianne P. Verhagen; Henrica C. W.  de Vet; Robert A.  de Bie; Maarten Boers; Piet A.  van den Brandt

doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00360-7

The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews

Arianne P. Verhagen^*, Henrica C. W. de Vet, Robert A. de Bie, Maarten Boers, Piet A. van den Brandt

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

The best evidence on the efficacy of medical interventions is provided by high-quality trials summarized in high-quality systematic reviews or meta-analyses. The methodological quality of studies included in a systematic review can have a substantial impact on the estimates of the treatment effect and therefore on the conclusions of such a review. But what is the empirical evidence to support quality assessment of randomized clinical trials (RCTs)? We elaborate on questions such as: what is the concept of quality of individual studies (RCTs), can quality be measured validly and reliably? Plans for future research on this issue are proposed. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	651-654
Number of pages	4
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume	54
Issue number	7
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00360-7
Publication status	Published - Jul 2001

Keywords

Randomized controlled trials
Clinical-trials
Criteria list
Meta-analysis
Back-pain
Metaanalysis
Efficacy
Manipulation
Reliability
Guidelines

Access to Document

10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00360-7

Cite this

@article{5785900e731b494ba98e29d294588cca,

title = "The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews",

abstract = "The best evidence on the efficacy of medical interventions is provided by high-quality trials summarized in high-quality systematic reviews or meta-analyses. The methodological quality of studies included in a systematic review can have a substantial impact on the estimates of the treatment effect and therefore on the conclusions of such a review. But what is the empirical evidence to support quality assessment of randomized clinical trials (RCTs)? We elaborate on questions such as: what is the concept of quality of individual studies (RCTs), can quality be measured validly and reliably? Plans for future research on this issue are proposed. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.",

keywords = "Randomized controlled trials, Clinical-trials, Criteria list, Meta-analysis, Back-pain, Metaanalysis, Efficacy, Manipulation, Reliability, Guidelines",

author = "Verhagen, {Arianne P.} and {de Vet}, {Henrica C. W.} and {de Bie}, {Robert A.} and Maarten Boers and {van den Brandt}, {Piet A.}",

year = "2001",

month = jul,

doi = "10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00360-7",

language = "English",

volume = "54",

pages = "651--654",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",

issn = "0895-4356",

publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews

AU - Verhagen, Arianne P.

AU - de Vet, Henrica C. W.

AU - de Bie, Robert A.

AU - Boers, Maarten

AU - van den Brandt, Piet A.

PY - 2001/7

Y1 - 2001/7

N2 - The best evidence on the efficacy of medical interventions is provided by high-quality trials summarized in high-quality systematic reviews or meta-analyses. The methodological quality of studies included in a systematic review can have a substantial impact on the estimates of the treatment effect and therefore on the conclusions of such a review. But what is the empirical evidence to support quality assessment of randomized clinical trials (RCTs)? We elaborate on questions such as: what is the concept of quality of individual studies (RCTs), can quality be measured validly and reliably? Plans for future research on this issue are proposed. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

AB - The best evidence on the efficacy of medical interventions is provided by high-quality trials summarized in high-quality systematic reviews or meta-analyses. The methodological quality of studies included in a systematic review can have a substantial impact on the estimates of the treatment effect and therefore on the conclusions of such a review. But what is the empirical evidence to support quality assessment of randomized clinical trials (RCTs)? We elaborate on questions such as: what is the concept of quality of individual studies (RCTs), can quality be measured validly and reliably? Plans for future research on this issue are proposed. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

KW - Randomized controlled trials

KW - Clinical-trials

KW - Criteria list

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Back-pain

KW - Metaanalysis

KW - Efficacy

KW - Manipulation

KW - Reliability

KW - Guidelines

U2 - 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00360-7

DO - 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00360-7

M3 - Article

C2 - 11438404

SN - 0895-4356

VL - 54

SP - 651

EP - 654

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

IS - 7

ER -

The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this