JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association
-
To evaluate aspects of the publication process that may affect the quality of the literature in clinical economics and biomedical ethics, and to learn about the policies of medical journals regarding disclosure of relationships between investigators and research sponsors. ⋯ These findings suggest that the peer review process can be strengthened to improve the quality of the medical literature in clinical economics and biomedical ethics. Journal editors also need to better understand the terms of research sponsorship agreements.
-
To describe the pattern over time in the level of statistical power and the reporting of sample size calculations in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with negative results. ⋯ Most trials with negative results did not have large enough sample sizes to detect a 25% or a 50% relative difference. This result has not changed over time. Few trials discussed whether the observed differences were clinically important. There are important reasons to change this practice. The reporting of statistical power and sample size also needs to be improved.
-
To estimate the rate of full publication of the results of randomized clinical trials initially presented as abstracts at national ophthalmology meetings in 1988 and 1989; and to combine data from this study with data from similar studies to determine the rate at which abstracts are subsequently published in full and the association between selected study characteristics and full publication. ⋯ Approximately one half of all studies initially presented in abstract form are subsequently published as full-length reports. Most are published in full within 2 years of appearance as abstracts. Full publication may be associated with "significant" results and sample size.
-
To evaluate the authors' satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the peer review process of the Journal of Clinical Anesthesia. ⋯ The surveying of authors, important clients of the peer review process, should guide change necessary to better serve our authors and improve peer review.
-
To assess the methodologic quality of approaches used to allocate participants to comparison groups in randomized controlled trials from one medical specialty. ⋯ Proper randomization is required to generate unbiased comparison groups in controlled trials, yet the reports in these journals usually provided inadequate or unacceptable information on treatment allocation. Additional analyses suggest that nonrandom manipulation of comparison groups and selective reporting of baseline comparisons may have occurred.