Quality of randomized controlled trials reporting in the treatment of XXXX .

@entity1 @entity23 @entity242
PURPOSE: @entity23 ( @entity23 ) represent the best evidence in oncology practice. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of @entity242 @entity23 and to identify significant predictors of quality. @entity1 AND METHODS: Two investigators searched MEDLINE for pediatric and adult bone and soft tissue @entity242 @entity23 published between January 1988 and December 2008. The quality of each report was assessed by using a 15-point overall reporting quality score based on 15 items from the revised Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (overall quality score [OQS] range, 0 to 15 points). Concealment of allocation, appropriate blinding, and analysis according to intention-to-treat principle were assessed separately because of their crucial methodologic importance by using a 3-point key methodologic index score (MIS; range, 0 to 3). RESULTS: We retrieved 72 relevant @entity23 that included 16,029 @entity1 . The median OQS was 9.5. Allocation concealment, blinding, and analysis by intent to treat were reported only in 21 (29%), nine (12.5%), and 23 (32%) of the 72 @entity23 , respectively. The median MIS was 1 with a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 2. On multivariate analysis, publication after 1996 and high impact factor remained independent and significant predictors of improved OQS. The sole variable associated with improved MIS was the publication of chemotherapy-only trials. CONCLUSION: Although the overall quality of @entity242 @entity23 reporting has improved over time, reporting of key methodologic issues remains poor. This may lead to biased interpretation of @entity242 trial results.
