Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard study design in clinical effectiveness research, albeit some RCTs have been found to be fraudulent post-publication. The Trustworthiness in RAndomized Controlled Trials (TRACT) checklist examines RCT integrity through an assessment covering seven domains. While the authors claim that it can identify problematic trials, it has never been validated. A critical appraisal of the checklist highlights major failures in terms of health measurement methodology, including the arbitrary nature of items chosen. We applied the checklist to 16 RCTs coauthored by the checklist developer, and identified potential violations related to retrospective registration, ethical implications, authorship, methodology, implausible timeframes, zero participants to follow-up, implausible baseline characteristics, and excessive inter-group within trial as well as inter-trial similarities. In addition, we identified inconsistencies between the trials’ registration and data in the final published manuscripts. If we uncritically assume that the checklist is valid, then a formal institutional investigation into the trial portfolio its developer is warranted; especially targeting these 16 trials objectively shown to be problematic. The checklist should be considered as neither investigative nor conclusive of potential problems with RCTs until it is further refined and validated.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard study design in clinical effectiveness research, albeit some RCTs have been found to be fraudulent post-publication. The Trustworthiness in RAndomized Controlled Trials (TRACT) checklist examines RCT integrity through an assessment covering seven domains. While the authors claim that it can identify problematic trials, it has never been validated. A critical appraisal of the checklist highlights major failures in terms of health measurement methodology, including the arbitrary nature of items chosen. We applied the checklist to 16 RCTs coauthored by the checklist developer, and identified potential violations related to retrospective registration, ethical implications, authorship, methodology, implausible timeframes, zero participants to follow-up, implausible baseline characteristics, and excessive inter-group within trial as well as inter-trial similarities. In addition, we identified inconsistencies between the trials’ registration and data in the final published manuscripts. If we uncritically assume that the checklist is valid, then a formal institutional investigation into the trial portfolio its developer is warranted; especially targeting these 16 trials objectively shown to be problematic. The checklist should be considered as neither investigative nor conclusive of potential problems with RCTs until it is further refined and validated.
The aim of the work is aiming at determining the impact on Fertility and pregnancy outcomes of uterine artery ligation or Compression sutures for severe PPH based on a large single-center cohort, The secondary objectives were to compare maternal long term. 4 18 cases continued the follow up at 6 month Two out of 47 cases of the follow up got pregnant after 3 months postpartum by asking them by telephone and confirmed positive pregnancy tests. 6 months postpartum 5 women got pregnant .3 of the 7 cases we could follow up by telephone and they got delivered at GA of 38 w by elective C.S with no recurrence of placenta previa or accrete and no post-operative complications and for luck one of those we followed up at 3 month and moderate adhesions were found in office hysteroscopy and followed her by telephone by asking on her menstrual pattern which was irregular at first for 2months and regulated by hormonal treatment after which she got pregnant and was followed up for recurrence of placenta previa or accrete but her placenta was normal situated and underwent an elective C.S at 38 weeks with no postoperative or intraoperative complications .
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard study design in clinical effectiveness research, albeit some RCTs have been found to be fraudulent post-publication. The Trustworthiness in RAndomized Controlled Trials (TRACT) checklist examines RCT integrity through an assessment covering seven domains. While the authors claim that it can identify problematic trials, it has never been validated. A critical appraisal of the checklist highlights major failures in terms of health measurement methodology, including the arbitrary nature of items chosen. We applied the checklist to 16 RCTs coauthored by the checklist developer, and identified potential violations related to retrospective registration, ethical implications, authorship, methodology, implausible timeframes, zero participants to follow-up, implausible baseline characteristics, and excessive inter-group within trial as well as inter-trial similarities. In addition, we identified inconsistencies between the trials’ registration and data in the final published manuscripts. If we uncritically assume that the checklist is valid, then a formal institutional investigation into the trial portfolio its developer is warranted; especially targeting these 16 trials objectively shown to be problematic. The checklist should be considered as neither investigative nor conclusive of potential problems with RCTs until it is further refined and validated.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.