ABSTRACT
A reader’s confidence in the validity of reports of randomized controlled multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical trials and meta-analyses is largely deter mined by how thoroughly and clearly the authors describe the aim of the study, its aim, design, subjects, methods, procedures, findings, statistical analyses, results, and implications. Clinicians need this information to judge whether the con clusions reached are relevant to their practices, and meta-analysts need to know which trials have data that can be combined to yield reliable meta-analytic conclusions.
