期刊文献+

世界主要消化病杂志上随机对照试验报告质量比较分析 被引量:5

The Quality of Reporting of Randomized Trials Related to Digestive Diseases in 2008 and 1998:A Comparative Study
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的系统研究主要消化病杂志上发表的随机对照试验报告质量现状。方法系统分析并比较2008年和1998年发表在5本主要消化病杂志上的随机对照试验报告质量。相关文章通过检索MEDLINE获得。质量评价采用CONSORT声明修订版中的部分条目,内容包括随机序号产生、分配隐藏、盲法、样本量估算和意向性处理分析等。结果共检索到2008年的随机对照试验107个,1998年的99个。2008年的随机对照试验中,有76%(81/107)报告了恰当的随机序号产生方法,58%(62/107)报告了恰当的序号隐藏方法,58%(62/107)盲法恰当,78%(83/107)报告了恰当的样本量估算方法,69%(74/107)使用了意向性处理分析;而1998年相应的结果分别为35%(35/99),25%(25/99),53%(52/99),47%(47/99),42%(42/99)。结论 2008年与1998年相比,5本主要消化病杂志上的随机对照试验报告质量有了明显的提高,说明CONSORT声明修订版对于随机对照试验报告质量的提高有很大作用,但目前其报告质量仍有很大的提升空间。 Objective After the publication of the revised CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials) statement, few systematic studies have been conducted to assess the extent of improvement in the quality of RCT (randomized controlled trail) reporting in major gastroenterological and hepatological journals. Method The quality of RCT reporting in five major gastroenterological and hepatological journals published in 1998 or 2008 was analyzed and compared systematically. RCT-related articles were retrieved from MEDLINE using a high sensitivity search method. Their quality was evaluated based on some of the checklist items recommended in the revised CONSORT statement, especially those pertaining to methodology including random sequence generation, sequence concealment, blinding, sample size calculation, and ITF(intent-to-treat) analysis, as well as some other descriptive indicators. Results Our search retrieved a total 107 RCTs published in 2008 and 99 RCTs in 1998. In the RCTs reported in 2008, 76% (81/107) had adequate sequence generation, 58% (62/107) adequate sequence concealment, 58% (62/107) adequate blinding, 78% (83/107) adequate sample size calculation and 69% (74/107) ITI" analysis. The corresponding values for RCTs reported in 1998 were 35% (35/99), 25% (25/99), 53% (52/99), 47% (47/99) and 42% (42/99), respectively. Conclusion The quality of RCT reporting in 2008 has improved significantly comparing to that in 1998, indicating increased awareness of and compliance with the revised CONSORT statement. However, there is still much room for the improvement.
出处 《循证医学》 CSCD 2011年第3期176-181,共6页 The Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine
关键词 消化病杂志 随机对照试验 报告质量 quality of reports randomized trial digestive disease
  • 相关文献

参考文献25

  • 1Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes R J, et al. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials [J]. JAMA, 1995,273(5) :408-412.
  • 2Moher D, Jadad AR, Klassen TP. Does quality of reports of randomized trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? [J]. Lancet, 1998,352(9128): 609-613.
  • 3Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses [J]. Ann Intern Med, 2001,135 (11 ) : 982-989.
  • 4CONSORT. CONSORT endorsers: Journals. Available at: http: //www. consort-statement, org/about-consort/supporters/ consort-endorsers-journals/. Accessed Dec 28,2009.
  • 5CONSORT. CONSORT endorsers: Editorialgroups.Available at : http ://www.consortstatement.org/about -consort/supporters/ consort-endorsers--editorial-groups/. Accessed Dec 28,2009.
  • 6Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: A comparative before and after evaluation.The CONSORT Group [J]. JAMA, 2001,285(15) : 1992-1995.
  • 7Egger M, Jtini P, Bartlett C. Value of flow diagramsin reports of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT Group [J]. JAMA, 2001,285(15) : 1996-1999.
  • 8Robinson KA, Diekersin K. Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed [ J ]. Int J Epidemiol, 2002,31 ( 1 ) : 150-153.
  • 9Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
  • 10Bai Y, Gao J, Zou DW, et al. Methodological reporting of randomized clinical trials in major gastroenterology and hepatology Journals in 2006 [J]. Hepatology, 2009,49(6):2108-2112.

同被引文献47

  • 1贺佳.随机对照试验及统计学分析在临床医学应用中存在的问题[J].第二军医大学学报,2006,27(7):697-700. 被引量:13
  • 2John P.A.Ioannidis,Stephen J.W.Evans,Peter C.G■tzsche,Robert T.O’Neill,Douglas G.Altman,Kenneth Schulz,David Moher,杜亮.更好地报告随机试验中的危害:CONSORT声明扩展版[J].中国循证医学杂志,2006,6(9):682-689. 被引量:14
  • 3张宏伟,刘建平.临床试验中的盲法[J].中医杂志,2007,48(5):408-410. 被引量:25
  • 4Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration [J]. Ann Intern Med, 2001, 134: 663-694.
  • 5Moher D, Schulz KF, Ahman D. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials[J]. JAMA, 2001, 285(15): 1987-1991.
  • 6Hodkinson A, Kirkham J J, Tudur-Smith C, et al. Reporting of harms data in RCTs: a systematic review of empirical assessments against the CONSORT harms extension[J]. BMJ Open, 2013, 3(9): e003436.
  • 7Ioannidis JP, Lau J. Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials: An evaluation of 7 medical areas[J]. JAMA, 2001, 285(4): 437-443.
  • 8ICH. ICH guidelines [EB/OL]. [2014-9-12]. http://www.ich.org/ products/guidelines.
  • 9Bent S, Padula A, Avins AL. Brief communication: Better ways to question patients about adverse medical events: A randomized, controlled trial[J]. Ann Intern Med, 2006, 144(4): 257-261.
  • 10Wallin J, SjSvall J. Detection of adverse drug reactions in a clinical trial using two types of questioning[J]. Clinical Therapeutics, 1981, 3 (6) : 450-452.

引证文献5

二级引证文献16

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部