In judging the results of randomised trials it is important to know from where and how participants were recruited, to what extent they received the intended interventions, whether they were followed up as planned, and whether their data were analysed as stated. These details are to ensure that readers of trial reports can appreciate both how closely participants reflect those more generally suffering from the condition under investigation, and how reliably the trial's results test its hypothesis.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Moher D, Schulz K, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomised trials. Lancet 2001; 357: 1191-1194.
- 2. Wing LMH, Reid CM, Ryan P, et al, for the Second Australian National Blood Pressure Study Group. A comparison of outcomes with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and diuretics for hypertension in the elderly. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 583-592.
- 3. Kirby A, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Determining the sample size in a clinical trial. Med J Aust 2002; 177: 256-257. http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/177_05_020902/kir10425_fm.html
- 4. Beller EM, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Randomisation in clinical trials. Med J Aust 2002; 177: 565-567. <eMJA full text>
- 5. Fisher LD, Dixon DO, Herson J, et al. Intention to treat in clinical trials. In: Peace KE, editor. Statistical issues in drug research and development. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1990.
None identified.