Abstract
Background: Many randomised trials have serious methodological flaws that fatally undermine their results, which makes the research wasteful. This is of concern for many, including those doing systematic reviews that include trials. Cochrane systematic reviews all have a section called ' Implications for research', which allows authors of the review to present their conclusions on how future research might be improved. Looking at these conclusions might highlight priority areas for improvement. Methods: We focused on the Cochrane Schizophrenia Review Group and the Multiple sclerosis and rare diseases of the central nervous system Review Group (the MS Review Group). Reviews with citations between 2009 and 2019 were identified and the recommendations given by review authors in ' Implications for research' were put into categories. Results: Between 2009 and 2019 we identified 162 reviews for the Schizophrenia Review Group and 43 reviews for the MS Review Group. We created 22 categories in total, of which 12 were common to both groups. The five most used categories were the same for both: better choice of outcomes; better choice of intervention/comparator; longer follow-up; larger sample size; use of validated scales. Better choice of outcomes and/or intervention/comparator was recommended in over 50% of reviews. Longer follow-up and larger sample size were recommended in over a third, with use of validated scales being suggested in around a fifth of reviews. There was no obvious pattern of improvement over time for trials included in systematic reviews published by both groups. Conclusions: We suggest that trialists working in these areas (and others too) ask themselves why they have chosen their particular outcomes, intervention and comparator, whether follow-up is long enough, if the sample size is big enough and whether the scales they choose to measure their outcomes are appropriate.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | 178 |
Number of pages | 14 |
Journal | F1000Research |
Volume | 9 |
Early online date | 11 Mar 2020 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 25 Jun 2020 |
Bibliographical note
Grant information:The study was funded by the Health Research Board (grant ‘Capacity Building for Evidence Synthesis – Evidence Synthesis Ireland 2018’) as part of Trial Forge (http://trialforge.org), a non-commercial research initiative led by ST.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Data Availability Statement
Underlying dataOpen Science Framework: Data extracted from the Implications for Research sections of reviews from two Cochrane Review Groups. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XCJ7R
This project contains the following underlying data:
- Data from Implications for Research section of Cochrane MS Review Group 2009–2019.csv (Data extracted from Cochrane MS Review Group)
- Data from Implications for Research section of Cochrane Schizophrenia Review Group 2009–2019.csv (Data extracted from Cochrane Schizophrenia Review
Group)
Extended data
Open Science Framework: Data extraction form used in ‘What improvements do Cochrane systematic reviewers suggest for the design of trials?’. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FNJVZ
This project contains the following extended data:
- Data extraction form.csv (Study data extraction form) Open Science Framework: Full data extraction from the Implications for Research sections of reviews from two Cochrane Review Groups. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/P9CW6
This project contains the following data:
1. Data extraction MS 12-6-2020.csv
2. Data extraction Schizophrenia 12-6-2020.csv
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).
Keywords
- Multiple sclerosis
- Randomised controlled trial
- Schizophrenia
- Systematic reviews
- Trial methodology