Relation between randomized controlled trials published in leading general medical journals and the global burden of disease
Open Access
- 25 May 2004
- journal article
- research article
- Published by CMA Impact Inc. in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal
- Vol. 170 (11) , 1673-1677
- https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1031006
Abstract
Background: More than two-thirds of the world9s population live in low-income countries, where health priorities are different from those of people living in more affluent parts of the world. We evaluated the relation between the global burden of disease and conditions or diseases studied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in general medical journals. Methods: A MEDLINE search identified 373 RCTs that had been published in 6 international peer-reviewed general medical journals in 1999. Manual review excluded non-RCTs, brief reports and trials in which the unit of randomization was not the patient; 286 RCTs remained eligible for analysis. We identified the RCTs that studied any of the 40 leading causes of the global burden of disease. Five of these conditions were considered unsuitable for study with an RCT design and were excluded from subsequent analysis. To provide a practical perspective, we asked 12 experts working with international health organizations to rate the relevance to global health of the articles that studied any of the top 10 causes of the global burden of disease, as measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and mortality, using a 5-point Likert scale. Results: Among the 286 RCTs in our sample, 124 (43.4%) addressed 1 of the 35 leading causes of the global burden of disease. Of these, ischemic heart disease, HIV/AIDS and cerebrovascular disease were the most commonly studied conditions. Ninety articles (31.5%) studied 1 of the top 10 causes of the global burden of disease. The mean rating (and standard deviation) for international health relevance assigned by experts was 2.6 (1.5) out of 5. Only 14 (16%) of the 90 trials received a rating of 4 or greater, indicating high relevance to international health. Almost half of the 40 leading causes of the global burden of disease were not studied by any trial. Interpretation: Many conditions or diseases common internationally are underrepresented in RCTs published in leading general medical journals. Trials published in these journals that studied one of these high-priority conditions were generally rated as being of little relevance to international health.Keywords
This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- Identification of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in CanadaNew England Journal of Medicine, 2003
- Clinical progression and viral load in a community outbreak of coronavirus-associated SARS pneumonia: a prospective studyThe Lancet, 2003
- Beyond Barcelona — The Global Response to HIVNew England Journal of Medicine, 2002
- A time for global healthBMJ, 2002
- Comparison of review articles published in peer-reviewed and throwaway journals.JAMA, 2002
- Burden of Disease—Implications for Future ResearchJAMA, 2001
- North and South: bridging the information gapThe Lancet, 2000
- The Relation between Funding by the National Institutes of Health and the Burden of DiseaseNew England Journal of Medicine, 1999
- Accuracy of Data in Abstracts of Published Research ArticlesJAMA, 1999
- Regional patterns of disability-free life expectancy and disability-adjusted life expectancy: Global Burden of Disease StudyThe Lancet, 1997