A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

[Do Clinical Trial Publications in AMD Healthcare Provide Sufficient Information on the Underlying Samples' Baseline Characteristics to Enable Generalizability Considerations on the Trial Design?]. | LitMetric

Background: Results of RCTs must enable readers to assess applicability of the presented information into clinical routine. Therefore, the CONSORT statement's item 15 recommends explicit information on (baseline) characteristics for RCT samples. We sought to quantify the adherence to this CONSORT item by evaluation of RCTs on "age-related macular degeneration" (AMD).

Materials And Methods: A full survey comprised of 132 RCTs (01/2004 - 12/2013). Two parallel independent readers evaluated, and then consented, whether baseline characteristics as recommended were provided in the publication, and whether this information was formally and correctly presented. The evaluation was performed hierarchically in accordance to the sub-criteria of the CONSORT-statement. In the case of formally correct documentation, characteristics for age, gender, the primary clinical endpoint outcome, and the stage of AMD were checked, as well as for systemic or ophthalmological pre-existing conditions.

Results: 129 of 132 (98%) publications provided the documentation of baseline data, but only 67 (51%) showed a correct implementation. 77 (58%) RCT reports presented baseline data at study initiation, among which n = 67 (87%) publications presented the data stratified for samples.

Conclusion: The implementation rate of the CONSORT criterion "baseline data" in publications appeared high. On closer inspection, publications often provided incomplete or even misleading baseline data. As a consequence, everybody in the publication process should be aware of the conditions for publishing.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-0898-3773DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

baseline characteristics
12
baseline data
12
publications provided
8
baseline
6
publications
5
[do clinical
4
clinical trial
4
trial publications
4
publications amd
4
amd healthcare
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!