LIVIVO - The Search Portal for Life Sciences

zur deutschen Oberfläche wechseln
Advanced search

Search results

Result 1 - 10 of total 532

Search options

  1. Article ; Online: Spin in Scientific Publications: A Frequent Detrimental Research Practice.

    Boutron, Isabelle

    Annals of emergency medicine

    2019  Volume 75, Issue 3, Page(s) 432–434

    Language English
    Publishing date 2019-12-23
    Publishing country United States
    Document type Editorial ; Comment
    ZDB-ID 603080-4
    ISSN 1097-6760 ; 0196-0644
    ISSN (online) 1097-6760
    ISSN 0196-0644
    DOI 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.11.002
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  2. Article ; Online: Commentary on "Compliance of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in General Surgical Journals With the CONSORT 2010 Statement".

    Boutron, Isabelle

    Annals of surgery

    2019  Volume 269, Issue 3, Page(s) e28

    MeSH term(s) Guideline Adherence ; Periodicals as Topic ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Research Design
    Language English
    Publishing date 2019-01-23
    Publishing country United States
    Document type Journal Article ; Comment
    ZDB-ID 340-2
    ISSN 1528-1140 ; 0003-4932
    ISSN (online) 1528-1140
    ISSN 0003-4932
    DOI 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003158
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  3. Book: Randomized clinical trials of nonpharmacological treatments

    Boutron, Isabelle / Ravaud, Philippe / Moher, David

    (Chapman & Hall, CRC biostatistics series ; 46)

    2012  

    Author's details ed. by Isabelle Boutron ; Philippe Ravaud ; David Moher
    Series title Chapman & Hall, CRC biostatistics series ; 46
    Collection
    Keywords Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / methods ; Biomedical Research / methods ; Research Design ; Data Interpretation, Statistical
    Language English
    Size XVI, 387 S. : Ill., graph. Darst.
    Publisher CRC Press
    Publishing place Boca Raton u.a.
    Publishing country United States
    Document type Book
    HBZ-ID HT016108479
    ISBN 978-1-4200-8801-4 ; 1-4200-8801-7
    Database Catalogue ZB MED Medicine, Health

    More links

    Kategorien

  4. Article ; Online: Cochrane systematic reviews: contributions and perspectives.

    Boutron, Isabelle

    Joint bone spine

    2018  Volume 86, Issue 3, Page(s) 289–291

    MeSH term(s) Biomedical Research ; Evidence-Based Medicine ; Humans ; Meta-Analysis as Topic ; Network Meta-Analysis ; Publications/standards ; Publications/trends ; Quality Control ; Systematic Reviews as Topic
    Language English
    Publishing date 2018-09-28
    Publishing country France
    Document type Editorial
    ZDB-ID 2020487-5
    ISSN 1778-7254 ; 1297-319X
    ISSN (online) 1778-7254
    ISSN 1297-319X
    DOI 10.1016/j.jbspin.2018.09.013
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  5. Article ; Online: Comparison of effect estimates between preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles of COVID-19 trials.

    Davidson, Mauricia / Evrenoglou, Theodoros / Graña, Carolina / Chaimani, Anna / Boutron, Isabelle

    BMC medical research methodology

    2024  Volume 24, Issue 1, Page(s) 9

    Abstract: Background: Preprints are increasingly used to disseminate research results, providing multiple sources of information for the same study. We assessed the consistency in effect estimates between preprint and subsequent journal article of COVID-19 ... ...

    Abstract Background: Preprints are increasingly used to disseminate research results, providing multiple sources of information for the same study. We assessed the consistency in effect estimates between preprint and subsequent journal article of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials.
    Methods: The study utilized data from the COVID-NMA living systematic review of pharmacological treatments for COVID-19 (covid-nma.com) up to July 20, 2022. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pharmacological treatments vs. standard of care/placebo for patients with COVID-19 that were originally posted as preprints and subsequently published as journal articles. Trials that did not report the same analysis in both documents were excluded. Data were extracted independently by pairs of researchers with consensus to resolve disagreements. Effect estimates extracted from the first preprint were compared to effect estimates from the journal article.
    Results: The search identified 135 RCTs originally posted as a preprint and subsequently published as a journal article. We excluded 26 RCTs that did not meet the eligibility criteria, of which 13 RCTs reported an interim analysis in the preprint and a final analysis in the journal article. Overall, 109 preprint-article RCTs were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) delay between preprint and journal article was 121 (73-187) days, the median sample size was 150 (71-464) participants, 76% of RCTs had been prospectively registered, 60% received industry or mixed funding, 72% were multicentric trials. The overall risk of bias was rated as 'some concern' for 80% of RCTs. We found that 81 preprint-article pairs of RCTs were consistent for all outcomes reported. There were nine RCTs with at least one outcome with a discrepancy in the number of participants with outcome events or the number of participants analyzed, which yielded a minor change in the estimate of the effect. Furthermore, six RCTs had at least one outcome missing in the journal article and 14 RCTs had at least one outcome added in the journal article compared to the preprint. There was a change in the direction of effect in one RCT. No changes in statistical significance or conclusions were found.
    Conclusions: Effect estimates were generally consistent between COVID-19 preprints and subsequent journal articles. The main results and interpretation did not change in any trial. Nevertheless, some outcomes were added and deleted in some journal articles.
    MeSH term(s) Humans ; COVID-19 ; Preprints as Topic ; Peer Review, Research ; Publication Bias ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Systematic Reviews as Topic
    Language English
    Publishing date 2024-01-11
    Publishing country England
    Document type Journal Article
    ZDB-ID 2041362-2
    ISSN 1471-2288 ; 1471-2288
    ISSN (online) 1471-2288
    ISSN 1471-2288
    DOI 10.1186/s12874-023-02136-8
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  6. Article ; Online: Psychometric Properties and Domains Covered by Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used in Trials Assessing Interventions for Chronic Pain.

    Alebouyeh, Farzaneh / Boutron, Isabelle / Ravaud, Philippe / Tran, Viet-Thi

    Journal of clinical epidemiology

    2024  , Page(s) 111362

    Abstract: Objective: To identify the patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in clinical trials assessing interventions for chronic pain, describe their psychometric properties and the clinical domains they cover.: Study design and setting: We ... ...

    Abstract Objective: To identify the patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in clinical trials assessing interventions for chronic pain, describe their psychometric properties and the clinical domains they cover.
    Study design and setting: We identified phase 3 or 4 interventional trials on adult participants (age >18) registered in clinicaltrials.gov between January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022 and which provided "chronic pain" as a keyword condition. We excluded diagnostic studies and phase 1 or 2 trials. In each trial, one reviewer extracted all outcomes registered and identified those captured using PROMs. For each PROM used in more than 1% of identified trials, two reviewers assessed whether it covered the six important clinical domains from the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT): pain, emotional functioning, physical functioning, Participant ratings of global improvement of global improvement, symptoms and adverse events, and participant disposition (e.g., adherence to medication). Second, reviewers searched PubMed for both the initial publication and latest review reporting the psychometric properties of each PROM and their content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, hypotheses testing, criterion validity and responsiveness using published criteria from the literature.
    Results: In total, 596 trials assessing 4843 outcomes were included in the study (median sample size 60, interquartile range 40 to 100). Trials evaluated behavioral (22%), device-based (21%) and drug-based (10%) interventions. Of 495 unique PROMs, 55 were used in more than 1% trials (16 were generic pain measures; 8 were pain measures for specific diseases; 30 were measures of other symptoms or consequences of pain). About 50% PROMs had more than 50% of psychometric properties rated as sufficient. Scales often focused on a single clinical domain. Only 25% trials measured at least three clinical domains from IMMPACT.
    Conclusion: Only half of PROMs used in trials for chronic pain had sufficient psychometric properties for more than 50% of criteria assessed. Few PROMs assess more than one important clinical domain. Only 25% of trials measure more than 3/6 clinical domains considered important by IMMPACT.
    Language English
    Publishing date 2024-04-12
    Publishing country United States
    Document type Journal Article
    ZDB-ID 639306-8
    ISSN 1878-5921 ; 0895-4356
    ISSN (online) 1878-5921
    ISSN 0895-4356
    DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111362
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  7. Article ; Online: The differences and overlaps between 'explanatory' and 'pragmatic' controlled trials: a historical perspective.

    Glasziou, Paul / Matthews, Robert / Boutron, Isabelle / Chalmers, Iain / Armitage, Peter

    Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

    2023  Volume 116, Issue 12, Page(s) 425–432

    MeSH term(s) Research Design ; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic
    Language English
    Publishing date 2023-11-22
    Publishing country England
    Document type Journal Article
    ZDB-ID 6731-3
    ISSN 1758-1095 ; 0141-0768 ; 0035-9157
    ISSN (online) 1758-1095
    ISSN 0141-0768 ; 0035-9157
    DOI 10.1177/01410768231207536
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  8. Article ; Online: The Global Evidence Commission's report provided a wake-up call for the evidence community.

    Stewart, Ruth / Boutron, Isabelle / Akl, Elie A

    Journal of clinical epidemiology

    2022  Volume 154, Page(s) 212–215

    Language English
    Publishing date 2022-10-09
    Publishing country United States
    Document type Journal Article
    ZDB-ID 639306-8
    ISSN 1878-5921 ; 0895-4356
    ISSN (online) 1878-5921
    ISSN 0895-4356
    DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.10.002
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

  9. Article ; Online: Comparison of effect estimates between preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles of COVID-19 trials

    Mauricia Davidson / Theodoros Evrenoglou / Carolina Graña / Anna Chaimani / Isabelle Boutron

    BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol 24, Iss 1, Pp 1-

    2024  Volume 8

    Abstract: Abstract Background Preprints are increasingly used to disseminate research results, providing multiple sources of information for the same study. We assessed the consistency in effect estimates between preprint and subsequent journal article of COVID-19 ...

    Abstract Abstract Background Preprints are increasingly used to disseminate research results, providing multiple sources of information for the same study. We assessed the consistency in effect estimates between preprint and subsequent journal article of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials. Methods The study utilized data from the COVID-NMA living systematic review of pharmacological treatments for COVID-19 (covid-nma.com) up to July 20, 2022. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pharmacological treatments vs. standard of care/placebo for patients with COVID-19 that were originally posted as preprints and subsequently published as journal articles. Trials that did not report the same analysis in both documents were excluded. Data were extracted independently by pairs of researchers with consensus to resolve disagreements. Effect estimates extracted from the first preprint were compared to effect estimates from the journal article. Results The search identified 135 RCTs originally posted as a preprint and subsequently published as a journal article. We excluded 26 RCTs that did not meet the eligibility criteria, of which 13 RCTs reported an interim analysis in the preprint and a final analysis in the journal article. Overall, 109 preprint–article RCTs were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) delay between preprint and journal article was 121 (73–187) days, the median sample size was 150 (71–464) participants, 76% of RCTs had been prospectively registered, 60% received industry or mixed funding, 72% were multicentric trials. The overall risk of bias was rated as ‘some concern’ for 80% of RCTs. We found that 81 preprint–article pairs of RCTs were consistent for all outcomes reported. There were nine RCTs with at least one outcome with a discrepancy in the number of participants with outcome events or the number of participants analyzed, which yielded a minor change in the estimate of the effect. Furthermore, six RCTs had at least one outcome missing in the journal article and ...
    Keywords Preprint ; Peer-review ; Discrepancy ; COVID-19 ; Randomized controlled trial ; Medicine (General) ; R5-920
    Subject code 050
    Language English
    Publishing date 2024-01-01T00:00:00Z
    Publisher BMC
    Document type Article ; Online
    Database BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection)

    More links

    Kategorien

  10. Article ; Online: Synthesis methods used to combine observational studies and randomised trials in published meta-analyses.

    Cheurfa, Cherifa / Tsokani, Sofia / Kontouli, Katerina-Maria / Boutron, Isabelle / Chaimani, Anna

    Systematic reviews

    2024  Volume 13, Issue 1, Page(s) 70

    Abstract: Background: This study examined the synthesis methods used in meta-analyses pooling data from observational studies (OSs) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from various medical disciplines.: Methods: We searched Medline via PubMed to identify ... ...

    Abstract Background: This study examined the synthesis methods used in meta-analyses pooling data from observational studies (OSs) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from various medical disciplines.
    Methods: We searched Medline via PubMed to identify reports of systematic reviews of interventions, including and pooling data from RCTs and OSs published in 110 high-impact factor general and specialised journals between 2015 and 2019. Screening and data extraction were performed in duplicate. To describe the synthesis methods used in the meta-analyses, we considered the first meta-analysis presented in each article.
    Results: Overall, 132 reports were identified with a median number of included studies of 14 [9-26]. The median number of OSs was 6.5 [3-12] and that of RCTs was 3 [1-6]. The effect estimates recorded from OSs (i.e., adjusted or unadjusted) were not specified in 82% (n = 108) of the meta-analyses. An inverse-variance common-effect model was used in 2% (n = 3) of the meta-analyses, a random-effects model was used in 55% (n = 73), and both models were used in 40% (n = 53). A Poisson regression model was used in 1 meta-analysis, and 2 meta-analyses did not report the model they used. The mean total weight of OSs in the studied meta-analyses was 57.3% (standard deviation, ± 30.3%). Only 44 (33%) meta-analyses reported results stratified by study design. Of them, the results between OSs and RCTs had a consistent direction of effect in 70% (n = 31). Study design was explored as a potential source of heterogeneity in 79% of the meta-analyses, and confounding factors were investigated in only 10% (n = 13). Publication bias was assessed in 70% (n = 92) of the meta-analyses. Tau-square was reported in 32 meta-analyses with a median of 0.07 [0-0.30].
    Conclusion: The inclusion of OSs in a meta-analysis on interventions could provide useful information. However, considerations of several methodological and conceptual aspects of OSs, that are required to avoid misleading findings, were often absent or insufficiently reported in our sample.
    MeSH term(s) Humans ; Systematic Reviews as Topic ; Research Design ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Observational Studies as Topic
    Language English
    Publishing date 2024-02-21
    Publishing country England
    Document type Meta-Analysis ; Journal Article
    ZDB-ID 2662257-9
    ISSN 2046-4053 ; 2046-4053
    ISSN (online) 2046-4053
    ISSN 2046-4053
    DOI 10.1186/s13643-024-02464-w
    Database MEDical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System OnLINE

    More links

    Kategorien

To top