Published methodological quality of randomized controlled trials does not reflect the actual quality assessed in protocols

This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:

• The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
  BMJ, 2011
• Trial sample size, but not trial quality, is associated with positive study outcome
  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2010
• Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study
  BMJ, 2008
• Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis
  Trials, 2007
• Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group
  BMJ, 2004
• Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials
  BMJ, 2001
• Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?
  Published by Elsevier ,1998
• Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement
  JAMA, 1996
• Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials
  JAMA, 1995