Nutrition users’ guides: RCTs part 1 – structured guide for assessing risk of bias in randomised controlled trials that address therapy or prevention questions

Author:

Agarwal Arnav,Bala Malgorzata M,Zeraatkar Dena,Valli ClaudiaORCID,Alonso-Coello Pablo,Ghosh Nirjhar R,Han Mi Ah,Guyatt Gordon H,Klatt Kevin C,Ball Geoff D C,Johnston Bradley CORCID

Abstract

The purpose of this article, part 1 of 2 on randomised controlled trials (RCTs), is to provide readers (eg, clinicians, patients, health service and policy decision-makers) of the nutrition literature structured guidance on interpreting RCTs. Evaluation of a given RCT involves several considerations, including the potential for risk of bias, the assessment of estimates of effect and their corresponding precision, and the applicability of the evidence to one’s patient. Risk of bias refers to flaws in the design or conduct of a study that may lead to a deviation from measuring the underlying true effect of an intervention. Bias is assessed on a continuum from very low to very high (ie, definitely low to definitely high) risk of yielding estimates that do not represent true treatment-related effects and when appraising a study, judgement involves some degree of subjectivity. Specifically, when evaluating the risk of bias, one must first consider whether patient baseline characteristics (eg, age, smoking) are balanced between groups at randomisation, referred to as prognostic balance, and whether this balance is maintained throughout the study. While randomisation in sufficiently large trials may ensure prognostic balance between study arms at baseline; concealment of randomisation and blinding of participants, healthcare providers, data collectors, outcome adjudicators and data analysts to treatment allocation are needed to maintain prognostic balance between study arms after a trial begins. The status of each participant with respect to outcomes of interest must be known at the conclusion of a trial; when this is not the case, missing (lost) participant outcome data increases the likelihood that prognostic balance was not maintained at study completion. In addition, analysis of participants in the groups to which they were initially randomised (ie, intention-to-treat analysis) offers a reliable method to maintain prognostic balance. Finally, trials terminated early risk overestimating the treatment effect, especially when sample size is limited or stopping boundaries are not defined a priori.

Publisher

BMJ

Reference33 articles.

1. Evidence-based practice competencies among nutrition professionals and students: a systematic review;Ghosh;J Nutr,2024

2. Zeraatkar D , Souza RJ , Guyatt GH , et al . Nutrition users’ guides: systematic reviews part 1 - structured guide for methodological assessment, interpretation and application of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of non-randomized nutritional epidemiology studies. BMJ Nutrition, Prevention and Health.

3. Johnston BC , Fry HL , Rozga M , et al . Nutrition users’ guides: structured guide on how to use and interpret nutrition practice guideline recommendations. BMJ Nutrition, Prevention and Health.

4. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a mediterranean diet supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil or nuts;Estruch;N Engl J Med,2018

5. Users’ guides to the medical literature: A manual for evidence-based clinical practice. JAMAevidence, McGraw Hill Medical. 2015 Available: https://jamaevidence.mhmedical.com/Book.aspx?bookId=847

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3