In veterinary trials reporting and communication regarding randomisation procedures is suboptimal

N. Di Girolamo, Michelle Giuffrida, A. L. Winter, R. Meursinge Reynders

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To evaluate randomisation mechanisms in the veterinary literature, all trials defined as 'randomised' were extracted from five leading veterinary journals for the year 2013. Three blinded investigators evaluated (1) if the random sequence generation was actually non-random, and (2) whether method (CONSORT item 8A) and (3) type of randomisation (CONSORT item 8B) were reported. Trialists were contacted via email to establish (1) willingness to respond to questions on randomisation procedures, (2) whether reporting of randomisation improved following a suggestion to use the CONSORT 2010 guideline. Seven per cent ((95 per cent CI 2 to 12 per cent); 8/114) of the trials defined as 'randomised' explicitly used methods that are considered non-random. Almost half of the trials (49 per cent (40 to 59 per cent); 52/106) did not report any mechanism of randomisation. Only 13 trials (12.3 per cent (6 to 19 per cent); 13/106) reported both items. 39 of 114 (34.2 per cent) trialists contacted were willing to respond to further questions on randomisation mechanisms; 4 (3.5 per cent) trialists were unwilling and 71 (62.3 per cent) trialists did not respond. Email correspondence resulted in a mean clarification of 0.7 items (95 per cent CI 0.4 to 1.0) for the 15 trials for trialists that replied. Improved adherence to CONSORT guidelines and trialists communication is imperative to increase the quality of published evidence in veterinary medicine and to reduce research waste.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number104035
JournalVeterinary Record
Volume181
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 19 2017

Fingerprint

e-mail
Random Allocation
veterinary medicine
methodology
Guidelines
Veterinary Medicine
Research Personnel
Research

Keywords

  • clinical epidemiology
  • Clinical trials
  • Evidence-based medicine
  • methodology
  • randomisation
  • randomised controlled trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • veterinary(all)

Cite this

In veterinary trials reporting and communication regarding randomisation procedures is suboptimal. / Di Girolamo, N.; Giuffrida, Michelle; Winter, A. L.; Reynders, R. Meursinge.

In: Veterinary Record, Vol. 181, No. 8, 104035, 19.08.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Di Girolamo, N. ; Giuffrida, Michelle ; Winter, A. L. ; Reynders, R. Meursinge. / In veterinary trials reporting and communication regarding randomisation procedures is suboptimal. In: Veterinary Record. 2017 ; Vol. 181, No. 8.
@article{9320b19d7a4e4fc18f4bff816f028131,
title = "In veterinary trials reporting and communication regarding randomisation procedures is suboptimal",
abstract = "To evaluate randomisation mechanisms in the veterinary literature, all trials defined as 'randomised' were extracted from five leading veterinary journals for the year 2013. Three blinded investigators evaluated (1) if the random sequence generation was actually non-random, and (2) whether method (CONSORT item 8A) and (3) type of randomisation (CONSORT item 8B) were reported. Trialists were contacted via email to establish (1) willingness to respond to questions on randomisation procedures, (2) whether reporting of randomisation improved following a suggestion to use the CONSORT 2010 guideline. Seven per cent ((95 per cent CI 2 to 12 per cent); 8/114) of the trials defined as 'randomised' explicitly used methods that are considered non-random. Almost half of the trials (49 per cent (40 to 59 per cent); 52/106) did not report any mechanism of randomisation. Only 13 trials (12.3 per cent (6 to 19 per cent); 13/106) reported both items. 39 of 114 (34.2 per cent) trialists contacted were willing to respond to further questions on randomisation mechanisms; 4 (3.5 per cent) trialists were unwilling and 71 (62.3 per cent) trialists did not respond. Email correspondence resulted in a mean clarification of 0.7 items (95 per cent CI 0.4 to 1.0) for the 15 trials for trialists that replied. Improved adherence to CONSORT guidelines and trialists communication is imperative to increase the quality of published evidence in veterinary medicine and to reduce research waste.",
keywords = "clinical epidemiology, Clinical trials, Evidence-based medicine, methodology, randomisation, randomised controlled trials",
author = "{Di Girolamo}, N. and Michelle Giuffrida and Winter, {A. L.} and Reynders, {R. Meursinge}",
year = "2017",
month = "8",
day = "19",
doi = "10.1136/vr.104035",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "181",
journal = "Veterinary Record",
issn = "0042-4900",
publisher = "British Veterinary Association",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - In veterinary trials reporting and communication regarding randomisation procedures is suboptimal

AU - Di Girolamo, N.

AU - Giuffrida, Michelle

AU - Winter, A. L.

AU - Reynders, R. Meursinge

PY - 2017/8/19

Y1 - 2017/8/19

N2 - To evaluate randomisation mechanisms in the veterinary literature, all trials defined as 'randomised' were extracted from five leading veterinary journals for the year 2013. Three blinded investigators evaluated (1) if the random sequence generation was actually non-random, and (2) whether method (CONSORT item 8A) and (3) type of randomisation (CONSORT item 8B) were reported. Trialists were contacted via email to establish (1) willingness to respond to questions on randomisation procedures, (2) whether reporting of randomisation improved following a suggestion to use the CONSORT 2010 guideline. Seven per cent ((95 per cent CI 2 to 12 per cent); 8/114) of the trials defined as 'randomised' explicitly used methods that are considered non-random. Almost half of the trials (49 per cent (40 to 59 per cent); 52/106) did not report any mechanism of randomisation. Only 13 trials (12.3 per cent (6 to 19 per cent); 13/106) reported both items. 39 of 114 (34.2 per cent) trialists contacted were willing to respond to further questions on randomisation mechanisms; 4 (3.5 per cent) trialists were unwilling and 71 (62.3 per cent) trialists did not respond. Email correspondence resulted in a mean clarification of 0.7 items (95 per cent CI 0.4 to 1.0) for the 15 trials for trialists that replied. Improved adherence to CONSORT guidelines and trialists communication is imperative to increase the quality of published evidence in veterinary medicine and to reduce research waste.

AB - To evaluate randomisation mechanisms in the veterinary literature, all trials defined as 'randomised' were extracted from five leading veterinary journals for the year 2013. Three blinded investigators evaluated (1) if the random sequence generation was actually non-random, and (2) whether method (CONSORT item 8A) and (3) type of randomisation (CONSORT item 8B) were reported. Trialists were contacted via email to establish (1) willingness to respond to questions on randomisation procedures, (2) whether reporting of randomisation improved following a suggestion to use the CONSORT 2010 guideline. Seven per cent ((95 per cent CI 2 to 12 per cent); 8/114) of the trials defined as 'randomised' explicitly used methods that are considered non-random. Almost half of the trials (49 per cent (40 to 59 per cent); 52/106) did not report any mechanism of randomisation. Only 13 trials (12.3 per cent (6 to 19 per cent); 13/106) reported both items. 39 of 114 (34.2 per cent) trialists contacted were willing to respond to further questions on randomisation mechanisms; 4 (3.5 per cent) trialists were unwilling and 71 (62.3 per cent) trialists did not respond. Email correspondence resulted in a mean clarification of 0.7 items (95 per cent CI 0.4 to 1.0) for the 15 trials for trialists that replied. Improved adherence to CONSORT guidelines and trialists communication is imperative to increase the quality of published evidence in veterinary medicine and to reduce research waste.

KW - clinical epidemiology

KW - Clinical trials

KW - Evidence-based medicine

KW - methodology

KW - randomisation

KW - randomised controlled trials

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028287278&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85028287278&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/vr.104035

DO - 10.1136/vr.104035

M3 - Article

VL - 181

JO - Veterinary Record

JF - Veterinary Record

SN - 0042-4900

IS - 8

M1 - 104035

ER -