Comparing the reporting and conduct quality of exercise and pharmacological randomised controlled trials: A systematic review Review
| Authors: | Adams, S. C.; McMillan, J.; Salline, K.; Lavery, J.; Moskowitz, C. S.; Matsoukas, K.; Chen, M. M. Z.; Santa Mina, D.; Scott, J. M.; Jones, L. W. |
| Review Title: | Comparing the reporting and conduct quality of exercise and pharmacological randomised controlled trials: A systematic review |
| Abstract: | Objective Evaluate the quality of exercise randomised controlled trial (RCT) reporting and conduct in clinical populations (ie, adults with or at risk of chronic conditions) and compare with matched pharmacological RCTs. Design Systematic review. Data sources Embase (Elsevier), PubMed (NLM) and CINAHL (EBSCO). Study selection RCTs of exercise in clinical populations with matching pharmacological RCTs published in leading clinical, medical and specialist journals with impact factors ≥15. Review methods Overall RCT quality was evaluated by two independent reviewers using three research reporting guidelines (ie, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT; pharmacological RCTs)/CONSORT for non-pharmacological treatments; exercise RCTs), CONSORT-Harms, Template for Intervention Description and Replication) and two risk of bias assessment (research conduct) tools (ie, Cochrane Risk of Bias, Jadad Scale). We compared research reporting and conduct quality within exercise RCTs with matched pharmacological RCTs, and examined factors associated with quality in exercise and pharmacological RCTs, separately. Findings Forty-eight exercise RCTs (11 658 patients; median sample n=138) and 48 matched pharmacological RCTs were evaluated (18 501 patients; median sample n=160). RCTs were conducted primarily in cardiovascular medicine (43%) or oncology (31%). Overall quality score (composite of all research reporting and conduct quality scores; primary endpoint) for exercise RCTs was 58% (median score 46 of 80; IQR: 39-51) compared with 77% (53 of 68; IQR: 47-58) in the matched pharmacological RCTs (p≤0.001). Individual quality scores for trial reporting and conduct were lower in exercise RCTs compared with matched pharmacological RCTs (p≤0.03). Factors associated with higher overall quality scores for exercise RCTs were journal impact factor (≥25), sample size (≥152) and publication year (≥2013). Conclusions and relevance Research reporting and conduct quality within exercise RCTs is inferior to matched pharmacological RCTs. Suboptimal RCT reporting and conduct impact the fidelity, interpretation, and reproducibility of exercise trials and, ultimately, implementation of exercise in clinical populations. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018095033. © 2021 BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved. |
| Keywords: | adult; controlled study; review; reproducibility; exercise; practice guideline; risk assessment; systematic review; clinical evaluation; medline; clinical trials; rehabilitation medicine; sample size; embase; randomized controlled trial (topic); cinahl; clinical pharmacology; human; journal impact factor; statistics & research methods |
| Journal Title: | BMJ Open |
| Volume: | 11 |
| Issue: | 8 |
| ISSN: | 2044-6055 |
| Publisher: | BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. |
| Date Published: | 2021-08-01 |
| Start Page: | e048218 |
| Language: | English |
| DOI: | 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048218 |
| PROVIDER: | scopus |
| PMCID: | PMC8359527 |
| PUBMED: | 34380726 |
| DOI/URL: | |
| Notes: | Review -- Export Date: 1 September 2021 -- Source: Scopus |
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
Related MSK Work