Skip to main content
Log in

Quality of the supportive and palliative oncology literature: a focused analysis on randomized controlled trials

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The quality of the supportive and palliative oncology literature is unclear. We examined five indicators of study quality in the supportive and palliative oncology literature.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE, PsychInfo, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, and CINAHL for original studies related to “palliative care” and “cancer” during the first 6 months of 2004 and 2009. For each study, we extracted the study size, the sample size calculation, and other study characteristics. We also determined the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) overall quality score, the key methodologic index, and the Jadad score for randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Results

A total of 840 studies were included for sample size analysis, and 44 RCTs were identified for quality of reporting analysis. The median sample size was 70 for RCTs, 112 for cohort studies, and 200 for cross-sectional studies. Sample size calculations were most frequently reported in RCTs; however, 29/44 (66%) RCTs had no reporting, 5/44 (11%) had partial reporting, and 10/44 (23%) had full reporting. The median CONSORT overall quality score was 9 (interquartile range 7–11), key methodologic index was 0.50 (interquartile range 0–1.75), and Jadad score was 2 (interquartile range 1–3), suggesting low quality of reporting. We found no differences in the quality scores between 2004 and 2009. Key methodologic index score ≥2 was associated with the presence of funding from any source (10/25 vs. 1/19, P = 0.013) and funding from pharmaceutical industry (5/9 vs. 6/35, P = 0.03).

Conclusions

We identified deficiencies in the quality of supportive and palliative oncology RCTs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL (2003) Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 290(7):921–928

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Altman DG, Moher D, Schulz KF (2002) Peer review of statistics in medical research. Reporting power calculations is important. BMJ 325(7362):491, author reply 491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Balasubramanian SP, Wiener M, Alshameeri Z, Tiruvoipati R, Elbourne D, Reed MW (2006) Standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery: can we do better? Ann Surg 244(5):663–667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, Pitkin R, Rennie D, Schulz KF, Simel D, Stroup DF (1996) Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 276(8):637–639

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 289(4):454–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Booth CM, Cescon DW, Wang L, Tannock IF, Krzyzanowska MK (2008) Evolution of the randomized controlled trial in oncology over three decades. J Clin Oncol 26(33):5458–5464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown A, Kraft D, Schmitz SM, Sharpless V, Martin C, Shah R, Shaheen NJ (2006) Association of industry sponsorship to published outcomes in gastrointestinal clinical research. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 4(12):1445–1451

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG (2008) Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols. BMJ 337:a2299

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Charles P, Giraudeau B, Dechartres A, Baron G, Ravaud P (2009) Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: review. BMJ 338:b1732

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Freedman KB, Back S, Bernstein J (2001) Sample size and statistical power of randomised, controlled trials in orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83(3):397–402

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. CONSORT Checklist. http://www.consort-statement.org/home/. Accessed 7 May 2011

  12. Hertzog MA (2008) Considerations in determining sample size for pilot studies. Res Nurs Health 31(2):180–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hui D, Elsayem A, De la Cruz M, Berger A, Zhukovsky DS, Palla S, Evans A, Fadul N, Palmer JL, Bruera E (2010) Availability and integration of palliative care at US cancer centers. JAMA 303(11):1054–1061

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hui D, Parsons HA, Damani S, Fulton S, Liu J, Evans A, De La Cruz M, Bruera E (2011) Quantity, design, and scope of the palliative oncology literature. Oncologist 16(5):694–703

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17(1):1–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaptchuk TJ (2001) The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial: gold standard or golden calf? J Clin Epidemiol 54(6):541–549

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Khan SN, Mermer MJ, Myers E, Sandhu HS (2008) The roles of funding source, clinical trial outcome, and quality of reporting in orthopedic surgery literature. Am J Orthop 37(12):E205–E212, discussion E212

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lai R, Chu R, Fraumeni M, Thabane L (2006) Quality of randomized controlled trials reporting in the primary treatment of brain tumors. J Clin Oncol 24(7):1136–1144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lathyris DN, Patsopoulos NA, Salanti G, Ioannidis JP (2010) Industry sponsorship and selection of comparators in randomized clinical trials. Eur J Clin Invest 40(2):172–182

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Moher D, Dulberg CS, Wells GA (1994) Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 272(2):122–124

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L, Group C (2001) Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA 285(15):1992–1995

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D, Group C (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 285(15):1987–1991

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Montedori A, Bonacini MI, Casazza G, Luchetta ML, Duca P, Cozzolino F, Abraha I (2011) Modified versus standard intention-to-treat reporting: are there differences in methodological quality, sponsorship, and findings in randomized trials? A cross-sectional study Trials 12:58

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mulward S, Gotzsche PC (1996) Sample size of randomized double-blind trials 1976–1991. Dan Med Bull 43(1):96–98

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. O’Hara J (2008) How I do it: sample size calculations. Clin Otolaryngol 33(2):145–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Payne SA, Turner JM (2008) Research methodologies in palliative care: a bibliometric analysis. Palliat Med 22(4):336–342

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Rains JC, Penzien DB (2005) Behavioral research and the double-blind placebo-controlled methodology: challenges in applying the biomedical standard to behavioral headache research. Headache 45(5):479–486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rinck GC, van den Bos GA, Kleijnen J, de Haes HJ, Schade E, Veenhof CH (1997) Methodologic issues in effectiveness research on palliative cancer care: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol 15(4):1697–1707

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Rios LP, Odueyungbo A, Moitri MO, Rahman MO, Thabane L (2008) Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general endocrinology literature. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 93(10):3810–3816

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Rohrig B, du Prel JB, Wachtlin D, Kwiecien R, Blettner M (2010) Sample size calculation in clinical trials: part 13 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int 107(31–32):552–556

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rose SL, Krzyzanowska MK, Joffe S (2010) Relationships between authorship contributions and authors’ industry financial ties among oncology clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 28(8):1316–1321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2005) Sample size calculations in randomised trials: mandatory and mystical. Lancet 365(9467):1348–1353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sinha S, Ashby E, Jayaram R, Grocott MP (2009) Quality of reporting in randomized trials published in high-quality surgical journals. J Am Coll Surg 209(5):565–571, e561

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sladek R, Tieman J, Fazekas BS, Abernethy AP, Currow DC (2006) Development of a subject search filter to find information relevant to palliative care in the general medical literature. J Med Libr Assoc 94(4):394–401

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Thomas O, Thabane L, Douketis J, Chu R, Westfall AO, Allison DB (2008) Industry funding and the reporting quality of large long-term weight loss trials. Int J Obes 32(10):1531–1536

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Tieman J, Sladek R, Currow D (2008) Changes in the quantity and level of evidence of palliative and hospice care literature: the last century. J Clin Oncol 26(35):5679–5683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Toulmonde M, Bellera C, Mathoulin-Pelissier S, Debled M, Bui B, Italiano A (2011) Quality of randomized controlled trials reporting in the treatment of sarcomas. J Clin Oncol 29(9):1204–1209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Van Zundert J (2007) Clinical research in interventional pain management techniques: the clinician’s point of view. Pain Pract 7(3):221–229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Vansant AF (2003) The dilemma of the small sample size. Pediatr Phys Ther 15(3):145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study is supported in part by the National Institutes of Health grants RO1NR010162-01A1, RO1CA122292-01, and RO1CA124481-01 (EB).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no financial relationship with the sponsors and have full control of all primary data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Hui.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hui, D., Arthur, J., Dalal, S. et al. Quality of the supportive and palliative oncology literature: a focused analysis on randomized controlled trials. Support Care Cancer 20, 1779–1785 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-011-1275-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-011-1275-9

Keywords

Navigation