Topical antibiotics for the management of bacterial keratitis: an evidence-based review of high quality randomised controlled trials

2014 ◽  
Vol 98 (11) ◽  
pp. 1470-1477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elissa M McDonald ◽  
Felix S F Ram ◽  
Dipika V Patel ◽  
Charles N J McGhee
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Bacterial Keratitis ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Topical Antibiotics ◽  
Randomised Controlled

The Extent and Quality of Evidence in Neurological Physiotherapy: An Analysis of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro)

2000 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Moseley ◽  
Catherine Sherrington ◽  
Robert Herbert ◽  
Christopher Maher
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Quality Rating ◽  
Evidence Database ◽  
Randomised Controlled

AbstractEvidence-based practice involves the use of evidence from systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials. The extent of this evidence in neurological physiotherapy has not previously been surveyed. The aim of this study was to describe the quantity and quality of randomised controlled trials, and the quantity and scope of systematic reviews relevant to neurological physiotherapy. PEDro (the Physiotherapy Evidence Database) was searched for trials and reviews relevant to neurological physiotherapy (adult and paediatric). The quality and quantity of trials were analysed, and the topics and conclusions of reviews were synthesised. The search revealed a total of 265 records, consisting of 238 randomised controlled trials and 27 systematic reviews. Since the first trial was published in 1958, the number of trials has expanded exponentially. Fifty-four percent of trials were categorised as being of moderate to high quality, rating five or more out of ten. The first review was published in 1991. Many of the reviews have been unable to reach firm conclusions due to the paucity of available trials. The results show that there is a substantial body of evidence relevant to neurological physiotherapy. However, there remains scope for improvements in the quality of the conduct and reporting of clinical trials. There is an urgent need for more randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews.

Evidence-Based Practice: The Cochrane Collaboration, and Occupational Therapy

1998 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 144-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robyn L. Hayes ◽  
John J. McGrath
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Occupational Therapists ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

This paper describes how occupational therapists can become involved in the Cochrane Collaboration — a well-developed tool for facilitating the involvement of health professionals and lay people in evidence-based practice. The Cochrane Collaboration is a growing international project intended to systematically locate, conduct systematic reviews (including metaanalyses) of, and disseminate information on all available randomised controlled trials of interventions in any area of health. In particular, occupational therapists can use the Cochrane Collaboration to become better informed about best practice and evaluate research in their areas of interest, and learn skills related to conducting randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

scholarly journals Does a "Level I Evidence" rating imply high quality of reporting in orthopaedic randomised controlled trials?

2006 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rudolf W Poolman ◽  
Peter AA Struijs ◽  
Rover Krips ◽  
Inger N Sierevelt ◽  
Kristina H Lutz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Evidence Rating ◽  
Level I ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Inclusion of older patients with cancer in randomised controlled trials with patient-reported outcomes: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
pp. bmjspcare-2019-001902
Author(s):  
Francesco Sparano ◽  
Neil K Aaronson ◽  
Mirjam A G Sprangers ◽  
Peter Fayers ◽  
Andrea Pusic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Quality Of Life Research ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesInclusion of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) may be particularly important for older patients. The objectives of this systematic review were to quantify the frequency with which older patients are included in RCTs with PROs and to evaluate the quality of PRO reporting in those trials.MethodsAll RCTs with PRO endpoints, published between January 2004 and February 2019, which included a patient sample with a mean/median age ≥70 years, were considered for this systematic review. The following cancer malignancies were considered: breast, colorectal, lung, prostate, gynaecological and bladder cancer.Quality of PRO reporting was evaluated using the International Society for Quality of Life Research–PRO standards. Studies meeting at least two-thirds of these criteria were considered to have high-quality PRO reporting.ResultsOf 649 RCTs identified with a PRO endpoint, only 72 (11.1%) included older patients. Of these, 35 trials (48.6%) were conducted in patients with metastatic/advanced disease. PROs were primary endpoints in 20 RCTs (27.8%). Overall survival was the most frequently reported clinical outcome in studies of patients with metastatic/advanced cancer (n=28, 80%). One-third of the RCTs (n=24, 33.3%) were considered to have high-quality PRO reporting. Overall, the largest prevalence of RCTs with high-quality PRO reporting was observed in prostate and colorectal cancers.ConclusionsOur review indicates not only that PRO–RCT-based studies in oncology rarely include older patients but also that completeness of PRO reporting of many of them is often suboptimal.

New Evidence is Required

1997 ◽  
Vol 171 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glyn Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Medical Practice ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Widespread Acceptance ◽  
Standards Of Evidence ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
New Evidence

What's new about evidence-based medicine? Medical practice has been based upon scientific evidence for some time, although the standards of evidence we require before using a treatment are becoming more stringent. EBM places more emphasis on evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) than on clinical anecdote, but the notion that RCTs are the best evidence on the effectiveness of interventions has been around for nearly SO years. There is more emphasis now on systematic reviews and although they are not a new idea, their widespread acceptance has been a relatively recent phenomenon within medicine.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document