scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Analysis of Factors Associated with Methodological Quality in Laparoscopic Randomized Controlled Trials

2015 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 217-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stavros Athanasios Antoniou ◽  
Alexandros Andreou ◽  
George Athanasios Antoniou ◽  
Antonios Bertsias ◽  
Gernot Köhler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Acceptable Quality ◽  
Pubmed Search

Several methods for assessment of methodological quality in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been developed during the past few years. Factors associated with quality in laparoscopic surgery have not been defined till date. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between bibliometric and the methodological quality of laparoscopic RCTs. The PubMed search engine was queried to identify RCTs on minimally invasive surgery published in 2012 in the 10 highest impact factor surgery journals and the 5 highest impact factor laparoscopic journals. Eligible studies were blindly assessed by two independent investigators using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) tool for RCTs. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify potential associations with methodological quality. A total of 114 relevant RCTs were identified. More than half of the trials were of high or acceptable quality. Half of the reports provided information on comparative demographic data and only 21% performed intention-to-treat analysis. RCTs with sample size of at least 60 patients presented higher methodological quality (p = 0.025). Upon multiple regression, reporting on preoperative care and the experience level of surgeons were independent factors of quality.

Journal impact factor and methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials: an empirical study

2017 ◽  
Vol 402 (7) ◽  
pp. 1015-1022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Usama Ahmed Ali ◽  
Beata M. M. Reiber ◽  
Joren R. ten Hove ◽  
Pieter C. van der Sluis ◽  
Hein G. Gooszen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Journal Impact

scholarly journals The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Côté ◽  
Jan Hartvigsen ◽  
Iben Axén ◽  
Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde ◽  
Melissa Corso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Spinal Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Primary Dysmenorrhea ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Manipulative Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial. Objectives We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Global summit The Global Summit took place on September 14–15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence. Systematic review of the literature We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus. Results We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report. Conclusion Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.

Trends in Worldwide Volume and Methodological Quality of Surgical Randomized Controlled Trials

2013 ◽  
Vol 258 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Usama Ahmed Ali ◽  
Pieter C. van der Sluis ◽  
Yama Issa ◽  
Ibrahim Abou Habaga ◽  
Hein G. Gooszen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIALS OF CHRONIC PAIN IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2015 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. e1.66-e1
Author(s):  
Rym Boulkedid ◽  
Armiya Yousouf Abdou ◽  
Emilie Desselas ◽  
Marlène Monegat ◽  
Corinne Alberti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Recurrent Pain ◽  
Pharmacological Agents ◽  
Randomized Controlled

BackgroundApproximately 15 to 30% of children and adolescents suffer from daily pain persistent over more than 3 months and there is evidence supporting that the prevalence of chronic pain is steadily increasing in this population. Chronic pain is known to have a negative impact on children's development and social behaviour, leading often to severe psychological distress and physical disability. We reviewed medical literature to assess the characteristics and quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in chronic and recurrent pain in the paediatric population.MethodsWe performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library up to March 2014. Bibliographies of relevant articles were also hand-searched. We included all RCTs that involved children and adolescents (age 0 to 18 years) and evaluated the use of a pharmacological agent or a non-pharmacological approach in the context of chronic or recurrent pain. The latter was defined as pain persisting for more than 3 months. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and evaluated methodological quality.ResultsA total of 52 randomized controlled trials were selected and included in the analysis. The majority were conducted in single hospital institutions, with no information on study funding. Median sample size was 45 (34–57) participants. Almost 50% of the RCTs included both adults and children with a median age at inclusion of 13 years. Non-pharmacological approaches were more commonly tested whereas evaluation of pharmacological agents concerned less than 30% of RCTs. Abdominal pain and headache were the most common types of chronic pain experienced among trial participants. Overall, the methodological quality was poor and did not parallel the number of RCTs that increased over the years. The risk of bias was high or unclear in 70% of the trials.ConclusionsThis is the first systematic review of RCTs conducted to evaluate pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in chronic and recurrent pain in children and adolescents. Although, management of pain in adults has significantly improved over the years due to the evaluation of numerous analgesic therapies, our results highlight the existing knowledge gap with regards to children and adolescents. Therapeutic strategies, in particular pharmacological agents, applied to relieve chronic or recurrent pain in children and adolescents are not evaluated through high quality RCTs. The need to improve analgesic therapy in children and adolescents with chronic pain is still unmet. We discuss possible research constraints and challenges related to this fact as well as adequate methodologies to circumvent them.

Quality and Risk of Bias in Panax ginseng Randomized Controlled Trials: A Review

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (02) ◽  
pp. 231-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannah L. Shergis ◽  
Anthony L. Zhang ◽  
Wenyu Zhou ◽  
Charlie C. Xue
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Panax Ginseng ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Publication Date ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Clinical Benefits

Panax ginseng is one of the most frequently used herbs in the world. Numerous trials have evaluated its clinical benefits. However, the quality of these studies has not been comprehensively and systematically assessed. We reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Panax ginseng to evaluate their quality and risk of bias. We searched four English databases, without publication date restriction. Two reviewers extracted details about the studies' methodological quality, guided by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist and its extension for herbal interventions. Risk of bias was determined using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Of 475 potentially relevant studies, 58 met our inclusion criteria. In these 58 studies, 48.3% of the suggested CONSORT checklist items and 35.9% of the extended herbal items were reported. The quality of RCTs published after the CONSORT checklist improved. Until 1995 (before CONSORT) (n = 4), 32.8% of the items were reported in studies. From 1996–2006 (CONSORT published and revised) (n = 30), 46.1% were reported, and from 2007 (n = 24), 53.5% were reported (p = 0.005). After the CONSORT extension for herbal interventions was published in 2006, RCT quality also improved, although not significantly. Until 2005 (n = 34), 35.2% of the extended herbal items were reported in studies; and from 2006 onwards (n = 24), 37.3% were reported (p = 0.64). Most studies classified risk of bias as "unclear". Overall, the quality of Panax ginseng RCT methodology has improved since the CONSORT checklist was introduced. However, more can be done to improve the methodological quality of, and reporting in, RCTs.

Volume and methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in laparoscopic surgery: assessment over a 10-year period

2015 ◽  
Vol 210 (5) ◽  
pp. 922-929 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stavros A. Antoniou ◽  
Alexandros Andreou ◽  
George A. Antoniou ◽  
Oliver O. Koch ◽  
Gernot Köhler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Quality of surgical randomized controlled trials in hand surgery: a systematic review

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (8) ◽  
pp. 801-807 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chao Long ◽  
Heather E. desJardins-Park ◽  
Rita Popat ◽  
Paige M. Fox
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Hand Surgery ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Jadad Score ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Treat Analysis ◽  
Over Time

We assessed the quantity, quality and trends of randomized controlled trials comparing hand surgical interventions. Study characteristics were collected for 125 randomized controlled trials comparing hand surgical interventions. The Jadad scale (0–5), which assesses methodological quality of trials, was calculated. Logistic regressions were conducted to determine associations with the Jadad score. The studies were published between 1981 and 2015, with an increase over time, most often in Journal of Hand Surgery (European). Mean study size was 68 patients. Mean Jadad score was 2.1, without improvement over time. Thirty percent conducted a power analysis and 8% an intention-to-treat analysis. Studies conducted in the United Kingdom and with smaller sample sizes, power analysis and intention-to-treat analysis were associated with a higher Jadad score. The quantity of trials has increased over time while methodological quality has remained low, indicating a need to improve quality of trials in hand surgery literature.

scholarly journals Traditional Chinese Medicine Preparation Combined Therapy May Improve Chemotherapy Efficacy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiaming Wu ◽  
Yun Liu ◽  
Cantu Fang ◽  
Lixian Zhao ◽  
Lizhu Lin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Combined Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine Preparation

Background. Whether traditional Chinese medicine preparation combined therapy can improve the efficacy of chemotherapy is controversial. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine preparation combined with chemotherapy. Method. Three databases were searched from inception through August 2018. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving the combined treatment of chemotherapy and traditional Chinese medicine preparation compared to chemotherapy alone for treating cancer were retrieved. The methodological quality of the included RCTs was assessed with Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias assessment tool. Meta-analysis was adopted to make comprehensive comparisons between the experimental and control groups. Results. Four RCTs were included in this review, comprising 256 subjects. The majority of the RCTs were judged as being of poor methodological quality. Meta-analysis showed that the combination of traditional Chinese medicine preparation and chemotherapy appeared to be more effective than chemotherapy alone, for the treatment of cancer, as assessed by the disease control rate (RR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.79) and the objective response rate (RR: 2.71, 95% CI: 1.28 to 5.77). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of bone marrow suppression (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.37) or gastrointestinal reaction (RR: 1.12, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.69). Conclusions. Traditional Chinese medicine preparation combined with chemotherapy may improve objective response rates and disease control rates more than chemotherapy alone. The evidence that combined traditional Chinese medicine preparation can reduce the side effects of chemotherapy is insufficient. More rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these conclusions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document