An Evaluation of Method Reporting and Use in Clinical Trials in Dermatology

doi:10.1001/archderm.1985.01660110042011

You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.

Vol. 121 No. 11, November 1985

Online Only
	•	Online First Table of Contents

STUDIES

•	Online Features

This Article
•	References
•	Full text PDF
•	Correction
•	Reply to article
•	Send to a friend
•	Save in My Folder
•	Save to citation manager
•	Permissions

Citing Articles
•	Citation map
•	Citing articles on HighWire
•	Citing articles on Web of Science (24)
•	Contact me when this article is cited

Related Content
•	Similar articles in this journal

Social Bookmarking
	What's this?

An Evaluation of Method Reporting and Use in Clinical Trials in Dermatology

Michael Bigby, MD; Robert S. Stern, MD; JudyAnn Bigby, MD

Arch Dermatol. 1985;121(11):1394-1399.

Abstract

• In a survey of 62 clinical trials published in four dermatologyjournals, recommended methodology was reported 41% of the time.Of the 62 trials, 31 were open drug trials and 27 were controlledtrials. Forty-one percent of 13 recommended methodologic itemswere reported in these articles. The rate of reporting for theseitems ranged from 3% for power and method of randomization to76% for loss to follow-up and the use of a control group. Therewere no differences among journals in reporting methods used.Investigators and editors are encouraged to improve the reportingand use of recommended methodology in clinical trials publishedin the dermatologic literature.

(Arch Dermatol 1985;121:1394-1399)

Author Affiliations

From the Department of Dermatology and the Charles A. Dana Research Institute, Beth Israel Hospital and Harvard Medical School (Drs M. Bigby and Stern); and the Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School (Dr J. Bigby), Boston.

Footnotes

Accepted for publication May 24, 1985.

Reprint requests to Department of Dermatology, Beth Israel Hospital,Boston, MA 02215 (Dr M. Bigby).

Add to CiteULike CiteULike Add to Connotea Connotea Add to Delicious Delicious Add to Digg Digg Facebook Add to Reddit Reddit Add to Technorati Technorati Twitter What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Indicates That Sunscreen Use Reduced the Risk of Developing Melanoma
Bigby and Kim
Arch Dermatol 2011;147:853-854.
FULL TEXT

A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Addition of Mycophenolate Mofetil or Placebo to Oral Corticosteroids in the Treatment of Pemphigus Vulgaris Fails to Demonstrate a Significant Difference in the Primary Outcome or Quality of Life
Bigby
Arch Dermatol 2011;147:489-491.
FULL TEXT

Pityriasis Versicolor: A Systematic Review of Interventions
Hu and Bigby
Arch Dermatol 2010;146:1132-1140.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT

The Reporting of Observational Research Studies in Dermatology Journals: A Literature-Based Study
Langan et al.
Arch Dermatol 2010;146:534-541.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT

Hepatotoxicity in the Review of Clinical Safety Data
Lin et al.
Drug Information Journal 2003;37:155-158.
ABSTRACT

How Well Are Randomized Controlled Trials Reported in the Dermatology Literature?
Adetugbo and Williams
Arch Dermatol 2000;136:381-385.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT

Evidence-Based Medicine in a Nutshell: A Guide to Finding and Using the Best Evidence in Caring for Patients
Bigby
Arch Dermatol 1998;134:1609-1618.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT

The Cochrane Skin Group: Preparing, Maintaining, and Disseminating Systematic Reviews of Clinical Interventions in Dermatology
Williams et al.
Arch Dermatol 1998;134:1620-1626.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT

Quality, Evolution, and Clinical Implications of Randomized, Controlled Trials on the Treatment of Lung Cancer: A Lost Opportunity for Meta-analysis
Nicolucci et al.
JAMA 1989;262:2101-2107.
ABSTRACT

What Can We Believe?
Brown
Arch Dermatol 1985;121:1391-1393.
ABSTRACT

| | |