Understanding why evidence from randomised clinical trials may not be retrieved from Medline: Comparison of indexed and non-indexed records

24Citations
Citations of this article
82Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To explore why reports that seem to describe randomised controlled trials are sometimes not indexed ("tagged") with RCT (randomised controlled trial) [pt] (publication type) in Medline. Design: Cross sectional study. Setting: The Cochrane Collaboration and US National Library of Medicine worked together to identify and retag records of randomised controlled trials with RCT [pt], 1994 to 2006. Data source: Published reports entered into Medline in 2005. Main outcome measures: Type of trial information presented (for example, main results, design, and methods), trial design, and other Medline indexing terms applied. Results: 572/591 (97%) untagged records and 578/594 (97%) tagged records contained information from randomised controlled trials. Type of trial information and design differed between untagged and tagged reports. Fewer than half (234/572, 41%, 95% confidence interval 37% to 45%) of untagged reports but most tagged reports (526/578, 91%, 89% to 93%) described the main results of the trial. Untagged reports were more likely than tagged reports to contain information on design and methods, baseline characteristics, long term follow-up, and secondary analyses. Untagged reports of main results were more likely than tagged reports to be from trials using a crossover design (36% v 10%, difference 25%, 95% confidence interval 19% to 32%). The Medical Subject Heading "Randomized Controlled Trials" was the most common clinical trial term applied to untagged reports, although more than half of untagged reports had no indexing related to trials. Conclusion: Based on the results for 2005, at least 3000 records describing randomised controlled trials but not indexed using RCT [pt] may have been entered into Medline between 2006 and 2011. Researchers and healthcare decision makers relying on using RCT [pt] may be missing important evidence in their searches, particularly for design and methods, baseline characteristics, long term follow-up, and secondary data analyses.

References Powered by Scopus

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series

17972Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Systematic Reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews

1459Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials

582Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Testosterone therapy and cardiovascular events among men: A systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trials

477Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The 2012 AHS/AAN guidelines for prevention of episodic migraine: A summary and comparison with other recent clinical practice guidelines

205Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Effect of waxy maize-derived hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 on renal function in surgical patients

153Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wieland, L. S., Robinson, K. A., & Dickersin, K. (2012). Understanding why evidence from randomised clinical trials may not be retrieved from Medline: Comparison of indexed and non-indexed records. BMJ (Online), 344(7838). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d7501

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 21

39%

Researcher 19

35%

Professor / Associate Prof. 13

24%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

2%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 40

71%

Social Sciences 8

14%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4

7%

Mathematics 4

7%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
Blog Mentions: 1
References: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free