Interpreting a randomized trial report: evidence-based practice for the clinician

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to present a structured approach to help the reader with the objective interpretation of published randomized clinical trials. This process will promote an organized and critical appraisal of scientific evidence, which we believe to be an essential step prior to the introduction of published scientific findings into clinical practice. The reason to personally scrutinize and critically assess published reports is that the process of peer review is by no means perfect and methodological flaws can be uncovered, even in articles published in prestigious journals. The article elaborates on the substance of the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) statements intended to facilitate the complete reporting of trials and aid in their critical assessment. The structure of the CONSORT guidelines was used as a basis for specific commentary, including cautions for the clinical interpretation, implications and impact of published randomized trial reports.

Registered Interventional Clinical Trials for Old Populations With Infectious Diseases on ClinicalTrials.gov: A Cross-Sectional Study

“…Evidence-based practice in old populations relies on clinical trials that were rigorous, transparent, and devoid of bias ( Vidaeff et al., 2016 ; Alarcon-Ruiz et al., 2019 ). Clinical trials provided evidence for clinical practice and were widely regarded as the most crucial evidence source of efficacy and safety ( Ruff et al., 2014 ).…”

Concerns regarding the use of antenatal betamethasone in late preterm gestation: is the evidence of potential harm being overstated?

“…We read the commentary by Vidaeff et al, regarding the need for caution in expanding the use of antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) with great interest, particularly as they refer to the recently published Eunice Kennedy Shriver NICHD MFMU Network Antenatal Late Preterm Steroids (ALPS) trial . We agree that there should always be thoughtful evaluation about the potential longer‐term effects of prenatal therapies and that follow‐up studies should be performed to address childhood and later life health outcomes.…”