File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Ophthalmic randomized controlled trials reports: The statement of the hypothesis

TitleOphthalmic randomized controlled trials reports: The statement of the hypothesis
Authors
Issue Date2014
Citation
American Journal of Ophthalmology, 2014, v. 157, n. 1, p. 254-259.e1 How to Cite?
AbstractPurpose To evaluate whether the ophthalmic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were designed properly, their hypotheses stated clearly, and their conclusions drawn correctly. Design A systematic review of 206 ophthalmic RCTs. Methods The objective statement, methods, and results sections and the conclusions of RCTs published in 4 major general clinical ophthalmology journals from 2009 through 2011 were assessed. The clinical objective and specific hypothesis were the main outcome measures. Results The clinical objective of the trial was presented in 199 (96.6%) studies and the hypothesis was specified explicitly in 56 (27.2%) studies. One hundred ninety (92.2%) studies tested superiority. Among them, 17 (8.3%) studies comparing 2 or more active treatments concluded equal or similar effectiveness between the 2 arms after obtaining insignificant results. There were 5 noninferiority studies and 4 equivalence studies. How the treatments were compared was not mentioned in 1 of the noninferiority studies. Two of the equivalence studies did not specify the equivalence margin and used tests for detecting difference rather than confirming equivalence. Conclusions The clinical objective commonly was stated, but the prospectively defined hypothesis tended to be understated in ophthalmic RCTs. Superiority was the most common type of comparison. Conclusions made in some of them with negative results were not consistent with the hypothesis, indicating that noninferiority or equivalence may be a more appropriate design. Flaws were common in the noninferiority and equivalence studies. Future ophthalmic researchers should choose the type of comparison carefully, specify the hypothesis clearly, and draw conclusions that are consistent with the hypothesis. © 2014 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/220884
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.831
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 2.803
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLee, Chun Fan-
dc.contributor.authorCheng, Andy Chi On-
dc.contributor.authorFong, Daniel Yee Tak-
dc.date.accessioned2015-10-22T09:04:42Z-
dc.date.available2015-10-22T09:04:42Z-
dc.date.issued2014-
dc.identifier.citationAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology, 2014, v. 157, n. 1, p. 254-259.e1-
dc.identifier.issn0002-9394-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/220884-
dc.description.abstractPurpose To evaluate whether the ophthalmic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were designed properly, their hypotheses stated clearly, and their conclusions drawn correctly. Design A systematic review of 206 ophthalmic RCTs. Methods The objective statement, methods, and results sections and the conclusions of RCTs published in 4 major general clinical ophthalmology journals from 2009 through 2011 were assessed. The clinical objective and specific hypothesis were the main outcome measures. Results The clinical objective of the trial was presented in 199 (96.6%) studies and the hypothesis was specified explicitly in 56 (27.2%) studies. One hundred ninety (92.2%) studies tested superiority. Among them, 17 (8.3%) studies comparing 2 or more active treatments concluded equal or similar effectiveness between the 2 arms after obtaining insignificant results. There were 5 noninferiority studies and 4 equivalence studies. How the treatments were compared was not mentioned in 1 of the noninferiority studies. Two of the equivalence studies did not specify the equivalence margin and used tests for detecting difference rather than confirming equivalence. Conclusions The clinical objective commonly was stated, but the prospectively defined hypothesis tended to be understated in ophthalmic RCTs. Superiority was the most common type of comparison. Conclusions made in some of them with negative results were not consistent with the hypothesis, indicating that noninferiority or equivalence may be a more appropriate design. Flaws were common in the noninferiority and equivalence studies. Future ophthalmic researchers should choose the type of comparison carefully, specify the hypothesis clearly, and draw conclusions that are consistent with the hypothesis. © 2014 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology-
dc.titleOphthalmic randomized controlled trials reports: The statement of the hypothesis-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ajo.2013.09.013-
dc.identifier.pmid24210767-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84890568583-
dc.identifier.hkuros228004-
dc.identifier.volume157-
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.spage254-
dc.identifier.epage259.e1-
dc.identifier.eissn1879-1891-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000329273000034-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats