Completeness of Safety Reporting in Randomized Trials is a research paper published in JAMA (2001). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 0.951. It has been cited 566 times.
ContextRandomized trials with adequate sample size offer an opportunity to assess the safety of new medications in a controlled setting; however, generalizable data on drug safety reporting are sparse.ObjectiveTo scrutinize the completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials.Design, setting, and patientsSurvey of safety reporting in 192 randomized drug trials 7 diverse topics with sample sizes of at least 100 patients and at least 50 patients in a study arm (N = 130074 patients). Trial reports were identified from comprehensive meta-analyses in 7 medical areas.Main outcome measuresAdequate reporting of specific adverse effects and frequency and reasons for withdrawals due to toxic effects; article space allocated to safety reporting and predictors of such reporting.ResultsSeverity of clinical adverse effects and laboratory-determined toxicity was adequately defined in only 39% and 29% of trial reports, respectively. Only 46% of trials stated the frequency of specific reasons for discontinuation of study treatment due to toxicity. For these 3 parameters, there was significant heterogeneity in rates of adequate reporting across topics (P =.003, PConclusionsThe quality and quantity of safety reporting vary across medical areas, study designs, and settings but they are largely inadequate. Current standards for safety reporting in randomized trials should be revised to address this inadequacy.
FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.
Base Score Contribution
0.951
From this paper's citation signal
Citation Network Contribution
0
Citation network not refreshed for this result
This paper's DataRank is currently driven only by its base citation score. Citation network data was not refreshed for this result.
Learn more about DataRank methodology →DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 100% comes from its base citations and 0% from the citation network.
Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.