Medical Case Reports

contact@imedpub.com Submit a Manuscript

Randomized Control Trials Review Journals

Randomized controlled trials are clinical trials in which at least two interventions — the test treatment and a control treatment — are simultaneously evaluated in two or more arms of the trial, with enrolment into each arm determined by a random process that ensures freedom from bias. They have been the gold-standard of clinical trials for decades.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enable objective testing of interventions in medicine. When published in a journal, they may not be publicly available in full text due to paywalls, and readers may not be willing or able to pay for reading the full text, but the abstract is usually freely available. Therefore, it is important that RCT abstracts are written clearly and with sufficient detail, because readers often use only the abstract as a source of information.

Peer review of journal articles is a crucial step within the research process. Editors believe the expertise of peer reviewers to properly assess submissions. Yet, referee quality varies widely and few receive training or guidance in the way to approach the task.
This paper describes a number of the most steps that peer reviewers generally and, especially , those performing reviewes of randomised controlled trials (RCT), can use when completing a review. It are often helpful to start with a quick read to acquaint yourself with the study, followed by an in depth read and a careful check for flaws. These are often divided into ‘major’ (problems that has got to be resolved before publication are often considered) and ‘minor’ (suggested improvements that are discretionary) flaws. Being conscious of the acceptable reporting checklist for the study being reviewed (such as CONSORT and its extensions for RCTs) also can be valuable.
Competing interests or prejudices might corrode the review, so ensuring transparency about them is vital . Finally, ensuring that the paper’s strengths are acknowledged along side a dissection of the weaknesses provides balance and perspective to both authors and editors. Helpful reviews are constructive and improve the standard of the paper. The proper conduct of a referee is that the responsibility of all who accept the role.

High Impact List of Articles
Conference Proceedings

Relevant Topics in Medical Sciences

Awards Nomination 17+ Million Readerbase
Google Scholar citation report
Citations : 241

Medical Case Reports received 241 citations as per Google Scholar report

image
Medical Case Reports peer review process verified at publons
image
Abstracted/Indexed in
  • Google Scholar
  • China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)
  • Cosmos IF
  • Directory of Research Journal Indexing (DRJI)
  • WorldCat
  • Publons
  • Secret Search Engine Labs
  • Euro Pub

View More »

Open Access Journals