期刊文献+

牙本质过敏症临床随机对照试验的报告质量评价 被引量:1

Assessment of reporting quality of randomized controlled trial related to dentine hypersensitivity
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的评价2000—2009年发表在19种中文口腔医学期刊上的治疗牙本质过敏症的临床随机对照试验(RCT)的报告质量,以了解牙本质过敏症RCT研究的报告现状以及影响报告质量的因素,并评价其能否为临床应用提供高质量证据。方法手工检索19种中文口腔医学期刊,纳入在2000—2009年发表的声明采用"随机"方法分组的牙本质过敏症RCT研究,采用国际公认的临床试验报告统一标准(CONSORT)评价报告质量,并采用单因素分析和多因素分析相结合的方法分析影响报告质量的因素。结果共纳入61篇牙本质过敏症RCT研究,其中45篇发表于中国科技论文统计源期刊,16篇发表于非统计源期刊。牙本质过敏症RCT研究的报告质量普遍不高,平均得分为(8.1±2.4)分。多元线性回归显示:改良Jadad评分量表得分(t=4.656,P=0.000)是影响牙本质过敏症RCT研究报告质量的主要因素,即内在真实性越好,报告质量越高。结论目前国内关于牙本质过敏症RCT研究的报告质量有待提高。笔者建议口腔医师在临床试验前完善RCT试验设计,并且按照CONSORT标准撰写论文,以提高论文的报告质量。 Objective To assess the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials(RCT) related to dentine hyper-sensitivity which were published between 2000 and 2009 in nineteen Chinese stomatological journals,learn the current status and the influence factors of reporting quality of the dentine hypersensitivity RCT,and determine whether they can provide high quality evidence clinically.Methods A handsearching of nineteen Chinese stomatological journals to identify dentine hypersensitivity RCT which were published between 2000 and 2009 and labeled "random".Assess the reporting quality of these RCT by Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials(CONSORT) statement and then analyze the influence factors of reporting quality by univariate and multivariate analyses.Results We identified 61 dentine hypersensitivity RCT,among which 45 belonged to journals of Chinese scientific study statistical source and 16 belonged to journals of non-statistical source.The reporting quality of dentine hypersensitivity RCT was not high at large and the CONSORT score was 8.1±2.4 on average.Multiple linear regression showed that the score of improved Jadad scale(t=4.656,P=0.000) was the main influence factor of reporting quality of dentine hypersensitivity RCT.The bet-ter the intrinsic authenticity was,the higher the reporting quality would be.Conclusion Currently,reporting quality of Chinese dentine hypersensitivity RCT needs to be improved.In order to improve the reporting quality of dentine hyper-sensitivity RCT,experts in stomatology should not only improve experimental design before experiments,but also write papers in accordance with CONSORT statement.
出处 《华西口腔医学杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2012年第3期267-270,274,共5页 West China Journal of Stomatology
基金 2010年四川大学大学生创新性实验计划基金资助项目(10-1061162)
关键词 牙本质过敏症 随机对照试验 报告质量 dentine hypersensitivity randomized controlled trial reporting quality
  • 相关文献

参考文献1

二级参考文献30

  • 1Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995 ;273(5): 408-412.
  • 2Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does the quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998;352(9128) :609-613.
  • 3Jadad AR, Boyle M, Cunningham C,et al. Treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Evid Rep Technol Assess 1999; ( 11 ): i-viii, 1-341.
  • 4Thornley B, Adams C. Content and quality of 2000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 50 years. BMJ 1998; 317 (7167):1181-1184.
  • 5Hotopf M, Lewis G, Normand C. Putting trials on trial - the costs and consequences of small trials in depression: a systematic review of methodology. J Epidemiol Community Health 1997; 51 (4): 354-358.
  • 6Dickinson K, Bunn F, Wentz R, et al. Size and quality of randomised controlled trials in head injury: review of published studies. BMJ 2000;320(7245): 1308-1311.
  • 7Begg CB, Cho MK, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996;276:637-639.
  • 8Freemantle N, Mason JM, Haines A, et al. CONSORT: an important step toward evidence-based health care. Ann Intern Med 1997;126(1) :81-83.
  • 9Altman DG. Better reporting of randomized controlled trials:the CONSORT statement. BMJ 1996; 313 (7057): 570-571.
  • 10Schulz KF. The quest for unbiased research: randomized clinical trials and the CONSORT reporting guidelines. Ann Neurol 1997; 41 (5): 569-573.

共引文献12

同被引文献4

引证文献1

二级引证文献1

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