Assessment of 30 Years of Randomized Controlled Trials in <i>The American Journal of Sports Medicine:</i> 1990-2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) stand atop the evidence-based hierarchy of study designs for their ability to arrive at results with the lowest risk of bias. Even for RCTs, however, critical appraisal is essential before applying results to clinical practice. Purpose: To analyze the quality of reporting of RCTs published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine ( AJSM) from 1990 to 2020 and to identify trends over time and areas of improvement for future trials. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: We queried the AJSM database for RCTs published between January 1990 and December 2020. Data pertaining to study characteristics were recorded. Quality assessments were conducted using the Detsky quality-of-reporting index and the modified Cochrane risk-of-bias (mROB) tool. Univariate and multivariable models were generated to establish factors with associations to study quality. The Fragility Index was calculated for eligible studies. Results: A total of 277 RCTs were identified with a median sample size of 70 patients. A total of 19 RCTs were published between 1990 and 2000 (t 1 ); 82 RCTs between 2001 and 2010 (t 2 ); and 176 RCTs between 2011 and 2020 (t 3 ). From t 1 to t 3 , significant increases were observed in the overall mean-transformed Detsky score (from 68.2% ± 9.8% to 87.4% ± 10.2%, respectively; P < .001) and mROB score (from 4.7 ± 1.6 to 6.9 ± 1.6, respectively; P < .001). Multivariable regression analysis revealed that trials with follow-up periods of <5 years clearly stated primary outcomes, and a focus on the elbow, shoulder, or knee were associated with higher mean-transformed Detsky and mROB scores. The median Fragility Index was 2 (interquartile range, 0-5) for trials with statistically significant. Studies with small sample sizes (<100 patients) were more likely to have low Fragility Index scores and less likely to have a statistically significant finding in any outcome. Conclusion: The quantity and quality of published RCTs published in AJSM increased over the past 3 decades. However, single-center trials with small sample sizes were prone to fragile results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.579 | 0.720 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".