Quality of randomised controlled trials

Editor—del Giglio and Costa argue that the quality of randomised controlled trials may be better than assumed.¹ Some articles do not present full details of the study they report and are rated by reviewers below their value. But authors of many articles try to beautify their reports by omission of non-attractive details and by other means.

Because clinical medicine is on the side of the patient or consumer, in cases that are not clear it will be safer to rely only on what is clearly said in a report. We must be critical when reading articles, because we often hear about falsification of research data. As a reviewer I know how difficult it is to receive additional details of a study from authors, and it is naive to think that matters will improve greatly in the near future.