共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Yaolong Chen Jing Li Changlin Ai Yurong Duan Ling Wang Mingming Zhang Sally Hopewell 《PloS one》2010,5(8)
Background
Clear, transparent and sufficiently detailed abstracts of randomized trials (RCTs), published in journal articles are important because readers will often base their initial assessment of a trial on such information. However, little is known about the quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs published in medical journals in China.Methods
We identified RCTs abstracts from 5 five leading Chinese medical journals published between 1998 and 2007 and indexed in MEDLINE. We assessed the quality of reporting of these abstracts based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) abstract checklist. We also sought to identify whether any differences exist in reporting between the Chinese and English language version of the same abstract.Results
We identified 332 RCT abstracts eligible for examination. Overall, the abstracts we examined reported 0–8 items as designated in the CONSORT checklist. On average, three items were reported per abstract. Details of the interventions (288/332; 87%), the number of participants randomized (216/332; 65%) and study objectives (109/332; 33%) were the top three items reported. Only two RCT abstracts reported details of trial registration, no abstracts reported the method of allocation concealment and only one mentioned specifically who was blinded. In terms of the proportion of RCT abstracts fulfilling a criterion, the absolute difference (percentage points) between the Chinese and English abstracts was 10% (ranging from 0 to 25%) on average, per item.Conclusions
The quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs published in Chinese medical journals needs to be improved. We hope that the introduction and endorsement of the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines by journals reporting RCTs will lead to improvements in the quality of reporting. 相似文献6.
Victoria Borg Debono Shiyuan Zhang Chenglin Ye James Paul Aman Arya Lindsay Hurlburt Yamini Murthy Lehana Thabane 《BMC anesthesiology》2012,12(1):1-11
Background
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are routinely used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses that help inform healthcare and policy decision making. The proper reporting of RCTs is important because it acts as a proxy for health care providers and researchers to appraise the quality of the methodology, conduct and analysis of an RCT. The aims of this study are to analyse the overall quality of reporting in 23 RCTs that were used in a meta-analysis by assessing 3 key methodological items, and to determine factors associated with high quality of reporting. It is hypothesized that studies with larger sample sizes, that have funding reported, that are published in journals with a higher impact factor and that are in journals that have adopted or endorsed the CONSORT statement will be associated with better overall quality of reporting and reporting of key methodological items.Methods
We systematically reviewed RCTs used within an anesthesiology related post-operative pain management meta-analysis. We included all of the 23 RCTs used, all of which were parallel design that addressed the use of femoral nerve block in improving outcomes after total knee arthroplasty. Data abstraction was done independently by two reviewers. The two main outcomes were: 1) 15 point overall quality of reporting score (OQRS) based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and 2) 3 point key methodological item score (KMIS) based on allocation concealment, blinding and intention-to-treat analysis.Results
Twenty-three RCTs were included. The median OQRS was 9.0 (Interquartile Range?=?3). A multivariable regression analysis did not show any significant association between OQRS or KMIS and our four predictor variables hypothesized to improve reporting. The direction and magnitude of our results when compared to similar studies suggest that the sample size and impact factor are associated with improved key methodological item reporting.Conclusions
The quality of reporting of RCTs used within an anesthesia related meta-analysis is poor to moderate. The information gained from this study should be used by journals to register the urgency for RCTs to be clear and transparent in reporting to help make literature accessible and comparable. 相似文献7.
Background
Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are the preferred study design when comparing therapeutical interventions in medicine. To improve clarity, consistency and transparency of reporting RCTs, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed.Objectives
(1) To assess the quality of reports and abstracts of RCTs in otorhinolaryngologic literature by using CONSORT checklists, (2) to compare the quality of reports and abstracts of otorhinolaryngologic RCTs between the top 5 general medical journals and top 5 otorhinolaryngologic journals, and (3) to formulate recommendations for authors and editors of otorhinolaryngologic (‘ENT’) journals.Methods
Based on 2012 ISI Web of Knowledge impact factors, the top 5 general medical and ENT journals were selected. On 25 June 2014, using a highly sensitive Cochrane RCT filter and ENT filter, possibly relevant articles since January 1st, 2010 were retrieved and relevant RCTs were selected. We assessed how many CONSORT items were reported adequately in reports and abstracts and compared the two journal types.Results
Otorhinolaryngologic RCTs (n = 15) published in general medical journals reported a mean of 92.1% (95% confidence interval: 89.5%–94.7%) of CONSORT items adequately, whereas RCTs (n = 18) published in ENT journals reported a mean of 71.8% (66.7%–76.8%) adequately (p < 0.001). For abstracts, means of 70.0% (63.7%–76.3%) and 32.3% (26.6–38.0%) were found respectively (p < 0.001). Large differences for specific items exist between the two journal types.Conclusion
The quality of reporting of RCTs in otorhinolaryngologic journals is suboptimal. RCTs published in general medical journals have a higher quality of reporting than RCTs published in ENT journals. We recommend authors to report their trial according to the CONSORT Statement and advise editors to endorse the CONSORT Statement and implement the CONSORT Statement in the editorial process to ensure more adequate reporting of RCTs and their abstracts. 相似文献8.
9.
10.
Background
Patient adherence to follow-up plays a key role in the medical surveillance of chronic diseases and affects the implementation of clinical research by influencing cost and validity. We previously reported a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on short message service (SMS) reminders, which significantly improved follow-up adherence in pediatric cataract treatment.Methods
RCTs published in English that reported the impact of SMS or telephone reminders on increasing or decreasing the follow-up rate (FUR) were selected from Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library through February 2014. The impacts of SMS and telephone reminders on the FUR of patients were systematically evaluated by meta-analysis and bias was assessed.Results
We identified 13 RCTs reporting on 3276 patients with and 3402 patients without SMS reminders and 8 RCTs reporting on 2666 patients with and 3439 patients without telephone reminders. For the SMS reminders, the majority of the studies (>50%) were at low risk of bias, considering adequate sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, evaluation of incomplete outcome data, and lack of selective reporting. For the studies on the telephone reminders, only the evaluation of incomplete outcome data accounted for more than 50% of studies being at low risk of bias. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for the improvement of follow-up adherence in the SMS group compared with the control group was 1.76 (95% CI [1.37, 2.26]; P<0.01), and the pooled OR for the improvement of follow-up adherence in the telephone group compared with the control group was 2.09 (95% CI [1.85, 2.36]; P<0.01); both sets showed no evidence of publication bias.Conclusions
SMS and telephone reminders could both significantly improve the FUR. Telephone reminders were more effective but had a higher risk of bias than SMS reminders. 相似文献11.
Jeroen Slikkerveer Pieter A Dijkmans Gertjan T Sieswerda Pieter AFM Doevendans Arie PJ van Dijk Freek WA Verheugt Thomas R Porter Otto Kamp 《Trials》2008,9(1):1-7
Background
The CONSORT Statement provides recommendations for reporting randomized controlled trials. We assessed the extent to which leading medical journals that publish reports of randomized trials incorporate the CONSORT recommendations into their journal and editorial processes.Methods
This article reports on two observational studies. Study 1: We examined the online version of 'Instructions to Authors' for 165 high impact factor medical journals and extracted all text mentioning the CONSORT Statement or CONSORT extension papers. Any mention of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) or clinical trial registration were also sought and extracted. Study 2: We surveyed the editor-in-chief, or editorial office, for each of the 165 journals about their journal's endorsement of CONSORT recommendations and its incorporation into their editorial and peer-review processes.Results
Study 1: Thirty-eight percent (62/165) of journals mentioned the CONSORT Statement in their online 'Instructions to Authors'; of these 37% (23/62) stated this was a requirement, 63% (39/62) were less clear in their recommendations. Very few journals mentioned the CONSORT extension papers. Journals that referred to CONSORT were more likely to refer to ICMJE guidelines (RR 2.16; 95% CI 1.51 to 3.08) and clinical trial registration (RR 3.67; 95% CI 2.36 to 5.71) than those journals which did not. Study 2: Thirty-nine percent (64/165) of journals responded to the on-line survey, the majority were journal editors. Eighty-eight percent (50/57) of journals recommended authors comply with the CONSORT Statement; 62% (35/56) said they would require this. Forty-one percent (22/53) reported incorporating CONSORT into their peer-review process and 47% (25/53) into their editorial process. Eighty-one percent (47/58) reported including CONSORT in their 'Instructions to Authors' although there was some inconsistency when cross checking information on the journal's website. Sixty-nine percent (31/45) of journals recommended authors comply with the CONSORT extension for cluster trials, 60% (27/45) for harms and 42% (19/45) for non-inferiority and equivalence trials. Few journals mentioned these extensions in their 'Instructions to Authors'.Conclusion
Journals should be more explicit in their recommendations and expectations of authors regarding the CONSORT Statement and related CONSORT extensions papers. 相似文献12.
Lesley Wood Matthias Egger Lise Lotte Gluud Kenneth F Schulz Peter Jüni Douglas G Altman Christian Gluud Richard M Martin Anthony J G Wood Jonathan A C Sterne 《BMJ (Clinical research ed.)》2008,336(7644):601-605
Objective To examine whether the association of inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and lack of blinding with biased estimates of intervention effects varies with the nature of the intervention or outcome.Design Combined analysis of data from three meta-epidemiological studies based on collections of meta-analyses.Data sources 146 meta-analyses including 1346 trials examining a wide range of interventions and outcomes.Main outcome measures Ratios of odds ratios quantifying the degree of bias associated with inadequate or unclear allocation concealment, and lack of blinding, for trials with different types of intervention and outcome. A ratio of odds ratios <1 implies that inadequately concealed or non-blinded trials exaggerate intervention effect estimates.Results In trials with subjective outcomes effect estimates were exaggerated when there was inadequate or unclear allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios 0.69 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.82)) or lack of blinding (0.75 (0.61 to 0.93)). In contrast, there was little evidence of bias in trials with objective outcomes: ratios of odds ratios 0.91 (0.80 to 1.03) for inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and 1.01 (0.92 to 1.10) for lack of blinding. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of drug and non-drug interventions. Except for trials with all cause mortality as the outcome, the magnitude of bias varied between meta-analyses.Conclusions The average bias associated with defects in the conduct of randomised trials varies with the type of outcome. Systematic reviewers should routinely assess the risk of bias in the results of trials, and should report meta-analyses restricted to trials at low risk of bias either as the primary analysis or in conjunction with less restrictive analyses. 相似文献
13.
Objective
To evaluate the reports'' qualities which are about randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture treatment on Mild Cognitive Impairment (MIC).Methods
Nine databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL,2010), PUBMED (1984-5/2010), EMbase (1984-5/2010), MEDLINE (1984-5/2010), CINAL (1984-5/2010), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI, 1980-5/2010), China Biomedicine Database disc (CBMdisc, 1980-5/2010), VIP (a full text issues database of China, 1989-5/2010) were searched systematically. Hand search for further references was conducted. Language was limited to Chinese and English. We identified 14 RCTs that used acupuncture as an intervention and assessed the quality of these reports against the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement and Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA).Results
In regard to the items in the CONSORT statement, 13(92.86%) RCTs described baseline demographic and clinical characteristics in each group. 7 (50.0%) mentioned the method of generating the random sequence, only 2 (14.3%) RCTs had adequate allocation concealment. No RCTs used blinding. RCTs reported the sample size calculation. In regard to the items in STRICTA, 10 (71.43%) mentioned the depths of insertion, 6 (42.86%) reported acupuncture response, 11 (78.57%) mentioned the technique of acupuncture, 12 (85.71%) recorded the time, and only 3 (21.43%) RCTs reported the numbers of needles inserted. No RCTs reported the background of the acupuncture practitioners and professional title of practitioners.Conclusion
The reporting quality of RCTs of acupuncture for mild cognitive impairment was moderate to low. The CONSORT statement and STRICTA should be used to standardize the reporting of RCTs of acupuncture in future. 相似文献14.
15.
Background
Bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of complementary therapy interventions seems to be associated with specific factors and to potentially distort the studies’ conclusions. This systematic review assessed associated factors of risk of bias and consequences for the studies’ conclusions in RCTs of yoga as one of the most commonly used complementary therapies.Methods
Medline/PubMed, Scopus, IndMED and the Cochrane Library were searched through February 2014 for yoga RCTs. Risk of selection bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool and regressed to a) publication year; b) country of origin; c) journal type; and d) impact factor using multiple logistic regression analysis. Likewise, the authors’ conclusions were regressed to risk of bias.Results
A total of 312 RCTs were included. Impact factor ranged from 0.0 to 39.2 (median = 1.3); 60 RCT (19.2%) had a low risk of selection bias, and 252 (80.8%) had a high or unclear risk of selection bias. Only publication year and impact factor significantly predicted low risk of bias; RCTs published after 2001 (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 12.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.7, 94.0; p<0.001) and those published in journals with impact factor (adjusted OR = 2.6; 95%CI = 1.4, 4.9; p = 0.004) were more likely to have low risk of bias. The authors’ conclusions were not associated with risk of bias.Conclusions
Risk of selection bias was generally high in RCTs of yoga; although the situation has improved since the publication of the revised CONSORT statement 2001. Pre-CONSORT RCTs and those published in journals without impact factor should be handled with increased care; although risk of bias is unlikely to distort the RCTs’ conclusions. 相似文献16.
Fleur T. van de Wetering Rob J. P. M. Scholten Tamara Haring Michael Clarke Lotty Hooft 《PloS one》2012,7(11)
Context
Since September 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has required that randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are prospectively registered in a publicly accessible database. After registration, a trial registration number (TRN) is assigned to each RCT, which should make it easier to identify future publications and cross-check published results with associated registry entries, as long as the unique identification number is reported in the article.Objective
Our primary objective was to evaluate the reporting of trial registration numbers in biomedical publications. Secondary objectives were to evaluate how many published RCTs had been registered and how many registered RCTs had resulted in a publication, using a sample of trials from the Netherlands Trials Register (NTR).Design, Setting
Two different samples of RCTs were examined: 1) RCTs published in November 2010 in core clinical journals identified in MEDLINE; 2) RCTs registered in the NTR with a latest expected end date of 31 August 2008.Results
Fifty-five percent (166/302) of the reports of RCTs found in MEDLINE and 60% (186/312) of the published reports of RCTs from the NTR cohort contained a TRN. In both samples, reporting of a TRN was more likely in RCTs published in ICMJE member journals as compared to non-ICMJE member journals (MEDLINE 58% vs. 45%; NTR: 70% vs. 49%). Thirty-nine percent of published RCTs in the MEDLINE sample appear not to have been registered, and 48% of RCTs registered in the NTR seemed not to have been published at least two years after the expected date for study completion.Conclusion
Our results show that further promotion and implementation of trial registration and accurate reporting of TRN is still needed. This might be helped by inclusion of the TRN as an item on the CONSORT checklist. 相似文献17.
Andrew J Vickers Angel M Cronin Alexandra C Maschino George Lewith Hugh Macpherson Norbert Victor Karen J Sherman Claudia Witt Klaus Linde 《Trials》2010,11(1):1-13
Objectives
To evaluate the use and reporting of adjusted analysis in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and compare the quality of reporting before and after the revision of the CONSORT Statement in 2001.Design
Comparison of two cross sectional samples of published articles.Data Sources
Journal articles indexed on PubMed in December 2000 and December 2006.Study Selection
Parallel group RCTs with a full publication carried out in humans and published in EnglishMain outcome measures
Proportion of articles reported adjusted analysis; use of adjusted analysis; the reason for adjustment; the method of adjustment and the reporting of adjusted analysis results in the main text and abstract.Results
In both cohorts, 25% of studies reported adjusted analysis (84/355 in 2000 vs 113/422 in 2006). Compared with articles reporting only unadjusted analyses, articles that reported adjusted analyses were more likely to specify primary outcomes, involve multiple centers, perform stratified randomization, be published in general medical journals, and recruit larger sample sizes. In both years a minority of articles explained why and how covariates were selected for adjustment (20% to 30%). Almost all articles specified the statistical methods used for adjustment (99% in 2000 vs 100% in 2006) but only 5% and 10%, respectively, reported both adjusted and unadjusted results as recommended in the CONSORT guidelines.Conclusion
There was no evidence of change in the reporting of adjusted analysis results five years after the revision of the CONSORT Statement and only a few articles adhered fully to the CONSORT recommendations. 相似文献18.
Alexander Tsertsvadze Amy Grove Karoline Freeman Rachel Court Samantha Johnson Martin Connock Aileen Clarke Paul Sutcliffe 《PloS one》2014,9(7)
Background
Evolvements in the design, fixation methods, size, and bearing surface of implants for total hip replacement (THR) have led to a variety of options for healthcare professionals to consider. The need to determine the most optimal combinations of THR implant is warranted. This systematic review evaluated the clinical effectiveness of different types of THR used for the treatment of end stage arthritis of the hip.Methods
A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in major health databases. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews published from 2008 onwards comparing different types of primary THR in patients with end stage arthritis of the hip were included.Results
Fourteen RCTs and five systematic reviews were included. Patients experienced significant post-THR improvements in Harris Hip scores, but this did not differ between impact types. There was a reduced risk of implant dislocation after receiving a larger femoral head size (36 mm vs. 28 mm; RR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.78) or cemented cup (vs. cementless cup; pooled odds ratio: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.89). Recipients of cross-linked vs. conventional polyethylene cup liners experienced reduced femoral head penetration and revision. There was no impact of femoral stem fixation and cup shell design on implant survival rates. Evidence on mortality and complications (aseptic loosening, femoral fracture) was inconclusive.Conclusions
The majority of evidence was inconclusive due to poor reporting, missing data, or uncertainty in treatment estimates. The findings warrant cautious interpretation given the risk of bias (blinding, attrition), methodological limitations (small sample size, low event counts, short follow-up), and poor reporting. Long-term pragmatic RCTs are needed to allow for more definitive conclusions. Authors are encouraged to specify the minimal clinically important difference and power calculation for their primary outcome(s) as well CONSORT, PRISMA and STROBE guidelines to ensure better reporting and more reliable production and assessment of evidence. 相似文献19.