Download PDF
DO - Deutsche Zeitschrift für Osteopathie 2020; 18(01): 4-12
DOI: 10.1055/a-0966-5252
Praxis
Qualitätsbewertung von RCTs
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Kriterien zur Qualitätsbewertung von randomisierten kontrollierten Studien (RCTs)

Hilde Sumbauer
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
02 January 2020 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Da randomisierte kontrollierte Studien (RCTs) als Goldstandard in der quantitativen klinischen Forschung angesehen werden, befasst sich diese Arbeit mit der Beurteilung der Qualität von Veröffentlichungen zu RCTs. Zur Veröffentlichung von klinischen Studien steht seit 1996 mit der Veröffentlichung des „Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement“ (CONSORT-Statement) erstmals eine international anerkannte Leitlinie zur Verfügung. Die aktuelle Version heißt CONSORT 2010 [1]. Die im Text ausgewiesenen Punkte der Checkliste sind der deutschen Übersetzung entnommen [2]. Speziell für Studien zu nichtpharmakologischen Interventionen veröffentlichte die CONSORT-Group 2008 eine Ergänzung [5].
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epi 2010; 63 (08) 834-840
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010: Aktualisierte Leitlinie für Berichte randomisierter Studien im Parallelgruppen-Design. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2011; 136: e20-e23
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D. et al. CONSORT for Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts: Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Medicine 2008; 5: e20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki [Online]. 64th WMA General Assembly, Fortaleza, Brazil, October 2013. Available: http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html [Accessed 10.02.2016]
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG. et al. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148: 295-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C. et al. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews?. BMJ 2008; 336: 1472-1474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Clarke M. Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews. Trials 2007; 8: 1-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz K. et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340: c869
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA. et al. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA 1994; 272: 125-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ. et al. Empirical evidence of bias: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273: 408-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Schnurr PP, Friedman MJ, Engel C. et al. Issues in the design of multisite clinical trials of psychotherapy: VA Cooperative Study No. 494 as an example. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2005; 26: 626-636
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Altman DG, de Stavola BL, Love SB. et al. Review of survival analyses published in cancer journals. British Journal of Cancer 1995; 72: 511-518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Psaty BM, Rennie D. Stopping medical research to save money: A broken pact with researchers and patients. JAMA 2003; 289: 2128-2131
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA. et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One 2008; 3: e3081
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Tukey JW. Some thoughts on clinical trials, especially problems of multiplicity. Science 1977; 198: 679-684
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Assmann SF, Pocock SJ, Enos LE. et al. Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet 2000; 355: 1064-1069
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hahn S, Williamson PR, Hutton JL. et al. Assessing the potential for bias in meta-analysis due to selective reporting of subgroup analyses within studies. Statistics in Medicine 2000; 19: 3325-3336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001; 323: 42-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 (Medizinische Statistik) medistat. Glossar. Unter: http://www.medistat.de/glossar/prinzip-statistischer-hypothesentests/klinische-relevanz/%5bletzter Zugriff am 02.10. 2019]
    Google Scholar