CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised crossover trials

Although randomised trials are important for evidence-based medicine, little is known about their overall characteristics. We assessed the epidemiology and reporting of methodological details for all 519 PubMed-indexed randomised trials published in December, 2000 (383 [74%] parallel-group, 116 [22%] crossover). 482 (93%) were published in specialty journals. A median of 80 participants (10th-90th percentile 25-369) were recruited for parallel-group trials. 309 (60%) were blinded. Power calculation, primary outcomes, random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and handling of attrition were each adequately described in less than half of publications. The small sample sizes are worrying, and poor reporting of methodological characteristics will prevent reliable quality assessment of many published trials.

Objective Although crossover trials enjoy wide use, standards for analysis and reporting have not been established. We reviewed methodological aspects and quality of reporting in a representative sample of published crossover trials. Methods We searched MEDLINE for December 2000 and identified all randomized crossover trials. We abstracted data independently, in duplicate, on 14 design criteria, 13 analysis criteria, and 14 criteria assessing the data presentation. Results We identified 526 randomized controlled trials, of which 116 were crossover trials. Trials were drug efficacy (48%), pharmacokinetic (28%), and nonpharmacologic (30%). The median sample size was 15 (interquartile range 8–38). Most (72%) trials used 2 treatments and had 2 periods (64%). Few trials reported allocation concealment (17%) or sequence generation (7%). Only 20% of trials reported a sample size calculation and only 31% of these considered pairing of data in the calculation. Carry-over issues were addressed in 29% of trial's methods. Most trials reported and defended a washout period (70%). Almost all trials (93%) tested for treatment effects using paired data and also presented details on by-group results (95%). Only 29% presented CIs or SE so that data could be entered into a meta-analysis. Conclusion Reports of crossover trials frequently omit important methodological issues in design, analysis, and presentation. Guidelines for the conduct and reporting of crossover trials might improve the conduct and reporting of studies using this important trial design.