A Systematic Examination of the Citation of Prior Research in Reports of Randomized, Controlled Trials

@article{Robinson2011ASE,
  title={A Systematic Examination of the Citation of Prior Research in Reports of Randomized, Controlled Trials},
  author={Karen A. Robinson and Steven N. Goodman},
  journal={Annals of Internal Medicine},
  year={2011},
  volume={154},
  pages={50 - 55}
}
BACKGROUND A randomized, controlled trial (RCT) should not be started or interpreted without accounting for evidence from preceding RCTs addressing the same question. Research has suggested that evidence from prior trials is often not accounted for in reports of subsequent RCTs. OBJECTIVE To assess the extent to which reports of RCTs cite prior trials studying the same interventions. DESIGN Meta-analyses published in 2004 that combined 4 or more trials were identified; within each meta… 
The citation of relevant systematic reviews and randomised trials in published reports of trial protocols
TLDR
A relatively high percentage of protocols ofrandomised trials involves prior citation of randomised trials, systematic reviews or both, however, improvements are required to ensure that it is explicit that clinical trials are justified and shaped by contemporary best evidence.
Biased and inadequate citation of prior research in reports of cardiovascular trials is a continuing source of waste in research.
Citation networks of related trials are often disconnected: implications for bidirectional citation searches.
Do protocols for new randomised trials take previous similar trials into account? Cohort study of contemporary trial protocols
TLDR
Rules for ethical approval should include requirements for systematic literature searches to ensure that research participants are not exposed to sub-optimal treatments or unnecessary harms as well as to reduce research waste.
Citation of prior research has increased in introduction and discussion sections with time: A survey of clinical trials in physiotherapy
Background/aims: Many clinical trials are reported without reference to the existing relevant high-quality research. This study aimed to investigate the extent to which authors of reports of clinical
Current use of routinely collected health data to complement randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological survey.
TLDR
The objective of RCD studies needs to shift more toward answering pivotal questions that are not supported by trial evidence or for which RCTs would be unfeasible.
The use of systematic reviews in the planning, design and conduct of randomised trials: a retrospective cohort of NIHR HTA funded trials
TLDR
Systematic reviews were referenced in most funded applications but just over half of these used the review to inform the design, while guidelines for applicants and funders should be developed to promote the use of systematic reviews in the design and planning of randomised trials.
...
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 41 REFERENCES
Comprehensiveness and bias in reporting clinical trials. Study of reviews of pneumococcal vaccine effectiveness.
TLDR
The findings suggest a need for greater scientific rigour in preparing, reviewing, and editing review articles, and to determine whether citation of relevant clinical trails is biased as to study results.
Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals.
TLDR
There was no evidence of progress in the proportion of reports of trials published in general medical journals that discussed the new results within the context of, or with reference to, up-to-date systematic reviews of relevant evidence from other controlled trials between 1997 and 2001.
Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals: islands in search of continents?
TLDR
There is little evidence that journals have adequately implemented the CONSORT recommendation that results of an RCT be discussed in light of the totality of the available evidence.
Reports of clinical trials should begin and end with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant evidence: a status report.
TLDR
There is no evidence of progress between 1997 and 2005 in the proportion of reports of trials published in general medical journals which discussed new results within the context of up-to-date systematic reviews of relevant evidence from other controlled trials.
The relationship between quality of research and citation frequency
TLDR
The journal in which a study is published appears to be as important as the statistical reporting quality in ensuring dissemination of published medical science.
Reference bias in reports of drug trials.
Articles published before 1985 describing double blind trials of two or more non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis were examined to see whether there was any bias in the
The use of systematic reviews when designing studies
TLDR
The proportion of study investigators using Cochrane or other systematic reviews in designing their new studies was very limited, and encouragement in publication or application guidelines to consider and cite review results is desirable.
A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction.
TLDR
Finding and analyzing all therapeutic trials in a given field has become such a difficult and specialized task that the clinical experts called on to summarize the evidence in a timely fashion need access to better databases and new statistical techniques to assist them.
Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals.
TLDR
The impact factor of the original publishing journal was more important than any other variable, suggesting that the journal in which a study is published may be as important as traditional measures of study quality in ensuring dissemination.
...
...