Key result
Major anesthesiology RCTs average a ~44% quality score, driven by poor randomization and observer blinding.
Why the study?
Increased attention has been directed at the quality of randomized controlled trials and their reporting, with a need to identify specific areas for improvement in anesthesiology journals.
Population
All RCTs published between January 2000 and December 2000 in leading anesthesiology journals
Comparison
Assessment using a previously validated 14-item quality tool
Design
Systematic review of published RCTs
Authors
Loading...
Suboptimal 2000 RCT quality scores in anesthesia journals caution interpretation of findings; supports targeted CONSORT training to improve future trial reporting.
Systematic Review
The quality of reporting and conduct of RCTs in major anesthesiology journals requires significant improvement, particularly regarding randomization methodology, blinding, and sample size estimates.
Greenfield et al. (2005) conducted a systematic review in Randomized controlled trials in anesthesiology. Quality assessment using a 14-item validated tool was evaluated on Overall mean weighted quality score. The overall mean weighted quality score of RCTs in major anesthesiology journals was 44%, with very low scores for randomization blinding (5%) and blinding observers to results (1%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: