logo BDSP

Base documentaire


Votre avis nous intéresse

Le réseau BDSP met en oeuvre un projet d'innovation et d'amélioration de ses services, dans le souci constant de proposer des contenus de qualité adaptés aux besoins des utilisateurs.

Identifier de nouvelles sources de financements est la condition nécessaire pour assurer la poursuite et la pérennité de cet outil unique qu'est la BDSP, tout en le faisant évoluer.

Pour définir un nouveau modèle économique, nous avons besoin de votre avis : merci de répondre à notre enquête (temps estimé : 5 minutes).

Participer maintenant
Participer plus tard J'ai déjà participé

  1. Blinding and exclusions after allocation in randomised controlled trials : survey of published parallel group trials in obstetrics and gynaecology.

    Article - En anglais

    Objective

    To assess the methodological quality of approaches to blinding and to handling of exclusions as reported in randomised trials from one medical specialty.

    Design-Survey of published, parallel group randomised controlled trials.

    Data sources-A random sample of 110 reports in which allocation was described as randomised from the 1990 and 1991 volumes of four journals of obstetrics and gynaecology.

    Main outcome measures-The adequacy of the descriptions of double blinding and exclusions after randomisation.

    Results

    Though 31 trials reported being double blind, about twice as many could have been.

    Of the 31 trials only eight (26%) provided information on the protection of the allocation schedule and only five (16%) provided some written assurance of successful implemention of double blinding.

    Of 38 trials in which the authors provided sufficient information for readers to infer that no exclusions after randomisation had occurred, six (16%) reported adequate allocation concealment and none stated that an intention to treat analysis had been performed.

    That compared with 14 (27%) and six (12%), respectively, for the 52 trials that reported exclusions.

    Conclusions-Investigators could have double blinded more often.

    When they did double blind, they reported poorly and rarely evaluated it.

    Paradoxically, trials that reported exclusions seemed generally of a higher methodological standard than those that had no apparent exclusions.

    Exclusions from analysis m...

    Mots-clés Pascal : Essai thérapeutique contrôlé, Gynécologie, Obstétrique, Aveugle, Arrêt traitement, Protocole thérapeutique, Randomisation, Homme, Etats Unis, Synthèse bibliographique, Amérique du Nord, Amérique

    Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Controlled therapeutic trial, Gynecology, Obstetrics, Blind, Withdrawal, Therapeutic protocol, Randomization, Human, United States, Bibliographic survey, North America, America

    Logo du centre Notice produite par :
    Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique

    Cote : 96-0195773

    Code Inist : 002B30A01C. Création : 199608.