Static Magnetic Field Therapy: A Critical Review of Treatment Parameters

Static magnetic field (SMF) therapy, applied via a permanent magnet attached to the skin, is used by people worldwide for self-care. Despite a lack of established SMF dosage and treatment regimens, multiple studies are conducted to evaluate SMF therapy effectiveness. Our objectives in conducting this review are to: (i) summarize SMF research conducted in humans; (ii) critically evaluate reporting quality of SMF dosages and treatment parameters and (iii) propose a set of criteria for reporting SMF treatment parameters in future clinical trials. We searched 27 electronic databases and reference lists. Only English language human studies were included. Excluded were studies of electromagnetic fields, transcranial magnetic stimulation, magnets placed on acupuncture points, animal studies, abstracts, posters and editorials. Data were extracted on clinical indication, study design and 10 essential SMF parameters. Three reviewers assessed quality of reporting and calculated a quality assessment score for each of the 10 treatment parameters. Fifty-six studies were reviewed, 42 conducted in patient populations and 14 in healthy volunteers. The SMF treatment parameters most often and most completely described were site of application, magnet support device and frequency and duration of application. Least often and least completely described were characteristics of the SMF: magnet dimensions, measured field strength and estimated distance of the magnet from the target tissue. Thirty-four (61%) of studies failed to provide enough detail about SMF dosage to permit protocol replication by other investigators. Our findings highlight the need to optimize SMF dosing parameters for individual clinical conditions before proceeding to a full-scale clinical trial.

Download Full-text

Quality of design and reporting of animal research in peritoneal dialysis: A scoping review

Peritoneal Dialysis International ◽

10.1177/0896860819896148 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 40 (4) ◽

pp. 394-404

Author(s):

Janusz Witowski ◽

Dorota Sikorska ◽

András Rudolf ◽

Izabela Miechowicz ◽

Julian Kamhieh-Milz ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Peritoneal Dialysis ◽

Scoping Review ◽

Animal Studies ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Animal Research ◽

Size Estimation ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

The Impact

The concerns about reproducibility and validity of animal studies are partly related to poor experimental design and reporting. Here, we undertook a scoping review of the literature to determine the extent and quality of reporting of animal studies on peritoneal dialysis (PD). Online databases were searched to identify 567 relevant original articles published between 1979 and 2018. These were analyzed with respect to bibliographic parameters and general aspects of animal experimentation. A subgroup of 120 studies was analyzed in detail in terms of the impact on the reporting quality of the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines for animal studies. The number of animal studies on PD increased continuously over the years with a thematic shift toward long-term preservation of the peritoneum as a dialyzing organ. There were significant deficiencies in research design with the lack of sample size estimation, randomization, and blinding being the commonest shortcomings. The description of animal numbers, housing conditions, use of medication, and statistical analysis was incomplete. The introduction in 2010 of the ARRIVE guidelines produced very little improvement in the completeness of reporting regardless of journal impact factor. The animal studies on PD suffer from deficits in experimental protocols and transparent reporting. These drawbacks need to be corrected to ensure high-quality and much-needed animal research in PD.

Download Full-text

Randomized Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (1997–2007): An Assessment of Reporting Quality with a CONSORT- and STRICTA-Based Instrument

Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine ◽

10.1155/2011/183910 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 2011 ◽

pp. 1-25 ◽

Cited By ~ 21

Author(s):

Richard Hammerschlag ◽

Ryan Milley ◽

Agatha Colbert ◽

Jeffrey Weih ◽

Beth Yohalem-Ilsley ◽

...

Keyword(s):

English Language ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Geographical Origin ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Inclusion Criteria ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Practitioner Training ◽

Acupuncture Research

The present study describes the development of a comprehensive quality of reporting assessment tool and its application to acupuncture RCTs from 1997–2007. This Oregon CONSORT STRICTA Instrument (OCSI) is based on the revised CONSORT guidelines as modified by the STRICTA recommendations for acupuncture trials. Each of the resulting 27 OCSI items were applied to English language prospective RCTs that compared acupuncture, using manual and/or electro-stimulation, to no treatment, a sham procedure, or usual biomedical care. The 333 RCTs that met inclusion criteria were dispersed among 27 countries and 141 journals. Mean quality of reporting score for all articles was 63.0% (SD 16.5). Mean OCSI scores revealed a 30.9% improvement over the ten-year period (P<.001). Our findings suggest that to enhance quality of reporting, authors should better attend to seven specific OCSI items in three categories: practitioner training, adverse events, and aspects of randomization and blinding (n=5). The broad diversity in geographical origin, publication site and quality of reporting, viewed in light of the considerable room for improvement in mean OCSI scores, emphasizes the importance of making STRICTA as well as CONSORT more widely known to journals and to the acupuncture research community.

Download Full-text

Assessing the reporting quality of randomized-controlled clinical trials involving novel oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation based on the CONSORT statement

International Journal of Clinical Trials ◽

10.18203/2349-3259.ijct20174862 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 4 (4) ◽

pp. 147

Author(s):

Alexandra D. Arvanitaki ◽

Polyxeni Mantzouratou ◽

Elias Zintzaras

Keyword(s):

Atrial Fibrillation ◽

English Language ◽

Treatment Effectiveness ◽

Oral Anticoagulants ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Consort Statement ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

Randomized Controlled

Background: Inadequate reporting of the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may restrict the generalizability of treatment effectiveness and tolerability of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The main objective of this study was to assess the reporting quality of RCTs for efficacy and safety of NOACs vs. warfarin in patients with AF based on the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) statement.Methods: Pubmed was searched for relevant english-language RCTs. Eligible articles included pivotal RCTs and articles reporting results from sub-populations or post-hoc secondary analysis of the pivotal trials (non-pivotal trials). Eligible articles were assessed according to 37-item/sub-item checklist of CONSORT statement 2010. The assessment was overall and according to trial’s type, NOAC treatment and impact factor (IF) of journals.Results: Search identified 92 articles eligible for evaluation. Half of CONSORT items were reported by more than 90% of the articles and 25% of items were reported in all articles. The majority of pivotal studies (94%) answered >75% of CONSORT items, while only half of non-pivotal studies had similar compliance (p<0.01). NOACs showed similar pattern in reporting quality (p>0.05), while IF had a significant effect in quality (p<0.01). Conclusions: RCTs for efficacy and safety of NOACs vs. warfarin in AF patients found to be well reported. Though, the quality of reporting is affected by type of trial and journals’ IF.

Download Full-text

Reporting Quality in Math Meta-Analyses for Students with or at Risk of Disabilities

Council review ◽

10.1177/00144029211050851 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 001440292110508

Author(s):

Gena Nelson ◽

Soyoung Park ◽

Tasia Brafford ◽

Nicole A. Heller ◽

Angela R. Crawford ◽

...

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Students With Disabilities ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

Mathematics Interventions ◽

Screening Process ◽

Mathematics Intervention ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Abstract Screening

Researchers and practitioners alike often look to meta-analyses to identify effective practices to use with students with disabilities. The number of meta-analyses in special education has also expanded in recent years. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of reporting in meta-analyses focused on mathematics interventions for students with or at risk of disabilities. We applied 53 quality indicators (QIs) across eight categories based on recommendations from Talbott et al. to 22 mathematics intervention meta-analyses published between 2000 and 2020. Overall, the meta-analyses met 61% of QIs and results indicated that meta-analyses most frequently met QIs related to providing a clear purpose (95%) and data analysis plan (77%), whereas meta-analyses typically met fewer QIs related to describing participants (39%) and explaining the abstract screening process (48%). We discuss the variation in quality indicator scores within and across the quality categories and provide recommendations for future researchers.

Download Full-text

Quality of reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research: a methodological review protocol

Chiropractic & Manual Therapies ◽

10.1186/s12998-021-00395-0 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 29 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Peter C. Emary ◽

Kent J. Stuber ◽

Lawrence Mbuagbaw ◽

Mark Oremus ◽

Paul S. Nolet ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Mixed Methods ◽

Mixed Methods Research ◽

Quantitative Methods ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Health Care Research ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

Methodological Review ◽

Chiropractic Research

Abstract Background Mixed methods designs are increasingly used in health care research to enrich findings. However, little is known about the frequency of use of this methodology in chiropractic research, or the quality of reporting among chiropractic studies using mixed methods. Objective To quantify the use and quality of mixed methods in chiropractic research, and explore the association of study characteristics (e.g., authorship, expertise, journal impact factor, country and year of publication) with reporting quality. Methods We will conduct a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature to identify all chiropractic mixed methods studies published from inception of each database to December 31, 2020. Articles reporting the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods, or mixed qualitative methods, will be included. Pairs of reviewers will perform article screening, data extraction, risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), and appraisal of reporting quality using the Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) guideline. We will explore the correlation between GRAMMS and MMAT scores, and construct generalized estimating equations to explore factors associated with reporting quality. Discussion This will be the first methodological review to examine the reporting quality of published mixed methods studies involving chiropractic research. The results of our review will inform opportunities to improve reporting in chiropractic mixed methods studies. Our results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and presented publicly at conferences and as part of a doctoral thesis.

Download Full-text

Quality of reporting for randomised clinical trials published in Latin American and Spanish journals: A protocol for a systematic survey of three clinical specialities

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036148 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (6) ◽

pp. e036148

Author(s):

Vivienne C Bachelet ◽

Víctor A Carrasco ◽

Fabiana Bravo-Córdova ◽

Ruben A Díaz ◽

Francisca J Lizana ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Latin American ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

Systematic Survey ◽

Secondary Analyses ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Changes Over Time ◽

The Impact ◽

Internal And External Validity

IntroductionQuality of reporting refers to how published articles communicate how the research was done and what was found. Gaps and imprecisions of reporting hamper the assessment of the methodological quality and internal and external validity. The CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) are a set of evidence-based recommendations of the minimum elements to be included in the reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to ensure a complete and transparent account of what was done, how it was done and what was found. Few studies have been conducted on the impact of CONSORT on RCTs published in Latin American and Spanish journals. We aim to assess the reporting quality of RCTs of three clinical specialities published in Spanish and Latin American journals, as well as to assess changes over time and associations of quality with journal and country indicators.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic survey of all RCTs published in Spanish-language journals in three clinical fields (dentistry, neurology and geriatrics) from 1990 to 2018. We will include RCTs from previous work that has identified all RCTs on these medical fields published in Spain and Latin America. We will update this work via handsearching of relevant journals. Assessment of quality of reporting will be conducted independently and in duplicate using the CONSORT 2010 Statement. We will also extract journal and country indicators. We will conduct descriptive statistics and secondary analyses considering the year, country, and journal of publication, among others.Ethics and disseminationThe Universidad de Santiago de Chile’s ethics committee approved the protocol. We will disseminate the results of this work in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference proceedings. We expect to raise awareness among researchers, journal editors and funders on the importance of training in reporting guidelines and using them from the inception of RCT protocols.

Download Full-text

Randomized controlled trials and neurosurgery: the ideal fit or should alternative methodologies be considered?

Journal of Neurosurgery ◽

10.3171/2014.12.jns142465 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 124 (2) ◽

pp. 558-568 ◽

Cited By ~ 30

Author(s):

Alireza Mansouri ◽

Benjamin Cooper ◽

Samuel M. Shin ◽

Douglas Kondziolka

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Sample Size ◽

English Language ◽

Sample Size Calculation ◽

Median Number ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Mesh Terms

OBJECT Randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are advocated to provide high-level medical evidence. However, in neurosurgery, there are barriers to conducting RCTs. The authors of this study sought to analyze the quality of neurosurgical RCTs since 2000 to determine the adequacy of their design and reporting. METHODS A search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (2000–2014) was conducted. The medical subject heading (MeSH) terms used in the search included: “neurosurgery” OR “neurosurgical procedure,” “brain neoplasms,” “infarction” and “decompression,” “carotid stenosis,” “cerebral hemorrhage,” and “spinal fusion.” These studies were limited to RCTs, in humans, and in the English language. The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) and Jadad scales were used to assess the quality of RCT design and reporting. The standardized median times cited (median citations divided by years since publication) were used to assess impact. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary-based scale was used to assess the design of the studies as primarily pragmatic or explanatory. RESULTS Sixty-one articles were identified, and the following subspecialties were the most common: vascular (23, 37%), followed by functional neurosurgery and neurooncology (both 13, 21%). The following nations were the primary leaders in RCTs: US (25 studies, 41%), Germany (8 studies, 13%), and the United Kingdom (7 studies, 11%). Median sample size was 100 (interquartile range [IQR] 41.5–279). The majority of the studies (40, 66%) had pragmatic objectives. The median number of times cited overall was 69 (IQR 20.5–193). The combined median CONSORT score was 36 (IQR 27.5–39). Blinding was most deficiently reported. Other areas with a relatively low quality of reporting were sample size calculation (34.2% of surgical, 38.5% of drug, and 20% of device studies), allocation concealment (28.9% of surgical, 23.1% of drug, and 50% of device studies), and protocol implementation (18.4% of surgical, 23% of drug, and 20% of device studies). The quality of reporting did not correlate with the study impact. All studies had a median Jadad score ≤ 3. Thirty-three pragmatic studies (83%) and 5 explanatory studies (25%) met the design objectives. All pragmatic studies based on drug and device trials met their objectives, while 74% of pragmatic surgical trials met their objectives. CONCLUSIONS The prevalence of neurosurgical RCTs is low. The quality of RCT design and reporting in neurosurgery is also low. Many study designs are not compatible with stated objectives. Pragmatic studies were more likely to meet design objectives. Given the role of RCTs as one of the highest levels of evidence, it is critical to improve on their methodology and reporting.

Download Full-text

Methodology and reporting quality of reporting guidelines: systematic review

BMC Medical Research Methodology ◽

10.1186/s12874-015-0069-z ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Xiaoqin Wang ◽

Yaolong Chen ◽

Nan Yang ◽

Wei Deng ◽

Qi Wang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Reporting Guidelines ◽

Quality Of Reporting

Download Full-text

Assessment of Reporting Quality in Randomised Controlled Trials of Acupuncture for Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Using the Consort Statement and Stricta Guidelines

Acupuncture in Medicine ◽

10.1136/acupmed-2016-011062 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 35 (2) ◽

pp. 100-106 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Jingchun Zeng ◽

Guohua Lin ◽

Lixia Li ◽

Liming Lu ◽

Chuyun Chen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Stroke Rehabilitation ◽

Randomised Controlled Trials ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Consort Statement ◽

Allocation Concealment ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

Post Stroke ◽

Randomised Controlled

Objectives To evaluate the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for post-stroke rehabilitation in order to provide information to facilitate transparent and more complete reporting of acupuncture RCTs in this field. Methods Multiple databases were searched from their inception through September 2015. Quality of reporting for included papers was assessed against a subset of criteria adapted from the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement and the Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) guidelines. Each item was scored 1 if it was reported, or 0 if it was not clearly stated. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed. Cohen's κ-statistics were calculated to assess agreement between the two reviewers. Results A total of 87 RCTs were included in the full text. Based on CONSORT, good reporting was evident for items “Randomised’ in the title or abstract’, ‘Participants’, ‘Statistical methods’, ‘Recruitment’, ‘Baseline data’, and ‘Outcomes and estimation’, with positive rates >80%. However, the quality of reporting for the items ‘Trial design’, ‘Outcomes’, ‘Sample size’, ‘Allocation concealment’, ‘Implementation’, ‘Blinding’, ‘Flow chart’, ‘Intent-to-treat analysis’, and ‘Ancillary analyses’ was very poor with positive rates <10%. Based on STRICTA, the items ‘Number of needle insertions per subject per session’, ‘Responses sought’, and ‘Needle type’ had poor reporting with positive rates <50%. Substantial agreement was observed for most items and good agreement was observed for some items. Conclusions The reporting quality of RCTs in acupuncture for post-stroke rehabilitation is unsatisfactory and needs improvement.

Download Full-text

Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in articles hand and wrist pathology: a review

Australasian Journal of Plastic Surgery ◽

10.34239/ajops.v2n2.141 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 2 (2) ◽

pp. 50-57

Author(s):

Amanda Yang Shen ◽

Robert S Ware ◽

Tom J O'Donohoe ◽

Jason Wasiak

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

English Language ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Annual Basis ◽

Cochrane Reviews ◽

Abstract Reporting

Background: An increasing number of systematic reviews are published on an annual basis. Although perusal of the full text of articles is preferable, abstracts are sometimes relied upon to guide clinical decisions. Despite this, the abstracts of systematic reviews have historically been poorly reported. We evaluated the reporting quality of systematic review abstracts within hand and wrist pathology literature. Methods: We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2017 for systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology using the 12-item PRISMA-A checklist to assess abstract reporting quality. Results: A total of 114 abstracts were included. Most related to fracture (38%) or arthritis (17%) management. Forty-seven systematic reviews (41%) included meta-analysis. Mean PRISMA-A score was 3.6/12 with Cochrane reviews having the highest mean score and hand-specific journals having the lowest. Abstracts longer than 300 words (mean difference [MD]: 1.43, 95% CI [0.74, 2.13]; p <0.001) and systematic reviews with meta-analysis (MD: 0.64, 95% CI [0.05, 1.22]; p = 0.034) were associated with higher scores. Unstructured abstracts were associated with lower scores (MD: –0.65, 95% CI [–1.28, –0.02]; p = 0.044). A limitation of this study is the possible exclusion of relevant studies that were not published in the English language. Conclusion: Abstracts of systematic reviews pertaining to hand and wrist pathology have been suboptimally reported as assessed by the PRISMA-A checklist. Improvements in reporting quality could be achieved by endorsement of PRISMA-A guidelines by authors and journals, and reducing constraints on abstract length.

Download Full-text