Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Checklist to assess Trustworthiness in RAndomised Controlled Trials (TRACT checklist): concept proposal and pilot.
Mol, Ben W; Lai, Shimona; Rahim, Ayesha; Bordewijk, Esmée M; Wang, Rui; van Eekelen, Rik; Gurrin, Lyle C; Thornton, Jim G; van Wely, Madelon; Li, Wentao.
Afiliación
  • Mol BW; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
  • Lai S; Aberdeen Centre for Women's Health Research, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
  • Rahim A; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
  • Bordewijk EM; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
  • Wang R; Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
  • van Eekelen R; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
  • Gurrin LC; Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
  • Thornton JG; Department of Epidemiology & Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
  • van Wely M; Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia. lgurrin@unimelb.edu.au.
  • Li W; Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Res Integr Peer Rev ; 8(1): 6, 2023 Jun 20.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37337220
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

To propose a checklist that can be used to assess trustworthiness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

DESIGN:

A screening tool was developed using the four-stage approach proposed by Moher et al. This included defining the scope, reviewing the evidence base, suggesting a list of items from piloting, and holding a consensus meeting. The initial checklist was set-up by a core group who had been involved in the assessment of problematic RCTs for several years. We piloted this in a consensus panel of several stakeholders, including health professionals, reviewers, journal editors, policymakers, researchers, and evidence-synthesis specialists. Each member was asked to score three articles with the checklist and the results were then discussed in consensus meetings.

OUTCOME:

The Trustworthiness in RAndomised Clinical Trials (TRACT) checklist includes 19 items organised into seven domains that are applicable to every RCT 1) Governance, 2) Author Group, 3) Plausibility of Intervention Usage, 4) Timeframe, 5) Drop-out Rates, 6) Baseline Characteristics, and 7) Outcomes. Each item can be answered as either no concerns, some concerns/no information, or major concerns. If a study is assessed and found to have a majority of items rated at a major concern level, then editors, reviewers or evidence synthesizers should consider a more thorough investigation, including assessment of original individual participant data.

CONCLUSIONS:

The TRACT checklist is the first checklist developed specifically to detect trustworthiness issues in RCTs. It might help editors, publishers and researchers to screen for such issues in submitted or published RCTs in a transparent and replicable manner.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials Idioma: En Revista: Res Integr Peer Rev Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Australia

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials Idioma: En Revista: Res Integr Peer Rev Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Australia