scholarly journals Comments on “Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts in the seven highest-ranking anesthesiology journals”

Trials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Kumar Ochani ◽  
Asim Shaikh ◽  
Naser Yamani

AbstractRandomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard in assessing treatment regimens, and since abstracts may be the only part of a paper that a physician reads, accurate reporting of data in abstracts is essential. The CONSORT checklist for abstracts was designed to standardize data reporting; however, for papers submitted to anesthesiology journals, the level of adherence to the CONSORT checklist for abstracts is unknown. Therefore, we commend Janackovic and Puljak for their efforts in determining the adherence of reports of trials in the highest-impact anesthesiology journals between 2014 and 2016. The results of their study are extremely important; however, we believe that that study had some methodological limitations, which we discuss in this manuscript.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Du ◽  
Yundi Zhang ◽  
Yiting Dong ◽  
Jianchun Duan ◽  
Hua Bai ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Susan Armijo-Olivo ◽  
Michele Patrini ◽  
Ana Izabela S de Oliveira-Souza ◽  
Liz Dennett ◽  
Chiara Arienti ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 421-427
Author(s):  
Ercole da Cruz Rubini ◽  
Fabio Dutra Pereira ◽  
Renato Sobral Monteiro-Junior ◽  
Patricia Zaidan ◽  
Cintia Pereira de Souza ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: randomized controlled trials are high quality studies. Many problems related to the drafting of these studies have been identified and consequently various national and international journals, in an attempt to improve this writing, have adopted the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials recommendations. Regarding the studies written specifically by physical therapists, until now, the quality of the drafting in Portuguese has been unknown. Aim: To critically analyze the drafting of RCTs in the area of physical therapy, published in Portuguese, in relation to the CONSORT recommendations. Materials and Methods: On 17th Oct, 2012, 548 RCTs in Portuguese were recovered from the MEDLINE and PEDro databases, which were divided among four evaluators who, after reading the abstracts, selected those related to physical therapy. Of these studies, 78 RCTs were related to physical therapy, which were divided among the four evaluators for the analysis of the drafting according to the CONSORT recommendations. The four evaluators who participated in this study previously obtained a median kappa above 70% when their analyses were compared to the analyses of the evaluator considered the gold standard due to having greater experience. Results: The quantity of items of the CONSORT recommendations according to year of publication was very small, corresponding to a mean of 43% of the items in the articles analyzed. Conclusion: The results make very clear the need to improve the quality of the drafting of the RCTs related to physical therapy in Portuguese and to include more rigorous methodological procedures, such as sample size, randomization and blinding. The dissemination and adoption of the CONSORT recommendations by physical therapy researchers would, without doubt, be a big step towards improving this quality.


2017 ◽  
Vol 119 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip H. Winne

Background Today's gold standard for identifying what works, the randomized controlled trial, poorly serves each and any individual learner. Elements of my argument provide grounds for proposed remedies in cases where software can log extensive data about operations each learner applies to learn and each bit of information to which a learner applies those operations. Purpose of Study Analyses of such big data can produce learning analytics that provide raw material for self-regulating learners, for instructors to productively adapt instructional designs, and for learning scientists to advance learning science. I describe an example of such a software system, nStudy. Research Design I describe and analyze features of nStudy, including bookmarks, quotes, notes, and note artifacts that can be used to generate trace data. Results By using software like nStudy as they study, learners can partner with instructors and learning scientists in a symbiotic and progressive ecology of authentic experimentation. Conclusion I argue that software technologies like nStudy offer significant value in supporting learners and advancing learning science. A rationale and recommendations for this approach arise from my critique of pseudo-random controlled trials.


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 555-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuangjiang Li ◽  
Wenbiao Zhang ◽  
Shan Cheng ◽  
Yongjiang Li

Summary A best evidence topic in thoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether pregabalin could effectively and safely reduce postoperative pain in patients undergoing pulmonary resections. Altogether 23 papers were found using the reported search, of which 6 randomized controlled trials represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. Five of 6 randomized controlled trials demonstrated that the application of oral pregabalin during the perioperative period could effectively reduce postoperative pain after pulmonary resections without compromising patients’ safety. One randomized controlled trial reported no difference in the postoperative pain levels between the pregabalin group and the control group. The rates of adverse effects were generally found to be decreased in patients who received pregabalin compared to the patients who received routine analgesia, although 2 studies reported significantly higher incidences of mild drowsiness and dizziness among the pregabalin-treated patients. Currently available evidence supports that the perioperative administration of pregabalin can effectively and safely relieve postoperative pain for patients undergoing pulmonary resections.


2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (10) ◽  
pp. 2371-2378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Speich ◽  
Kimberly A. Mc Cord ◽  
Arnav Agarwal ◽  
Viktoria Gloy ◽  
Dmitry Gryaznov ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Anthony D Bai ◽  
Adam S Komorowski ◽  
Carson K L Lo ◽  
Pranav Tandon ◽  
Xena X Li ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Antibiotic noninferiority randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are used for approval of new antibiotics and making changes to antibiotic prescribing in clinical practice. We conducted a systematic review to assess the methodological and reporting quality of antibiotic noninferiority RCTs. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Food and Drug Administration drug database from inception until November 22, 2019, for noninferiority RCTs comparing different systemic antibiotic therapies. Comparisons between antibiotic types, doses, administration routes, or durations were included. Methodological and reporting quality indicators were based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials reporting guidelines. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. Results The systematic review included 227 studies. Of these, 135 (59.5%) studies were supported by pharmaceutical industry. Only 83 (36.6%) studies provided a justification for the noninferiority margin. Reporting of both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were done in 165 (72.7%) studies. The conclusion was misleading in 34 (15.0%) studies. The studies funded by pharmaceutical industry were less likely to be stopped early because of logistical reasons (3.0% vs 19.1%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], .04–.37) and to show inconclusive results (11.1% vs 42.9%; OR = 0.17; 95% CI, .08–.33). The quality of studies decreased over time with respect to blinding, early stopping, reporting of ITT with PP analysis, and having misleading conclusions. Conclusions There is room for improvement in the methodology and reporting of antibiotic noninferiority trials. Quality can be improved across the entire spectrum from investigators, funding agencies, as well as during the peer-review process. There is room for improvement in the methodology and reporting of antibiotic noninferiority trials including justification of noninferiority margin, reporting of intention-to-treat analysis with per-protocol analysis, and having conclusions that are concordant with study results. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020165040.


2015 ◽  
Vol 146 (9) ◽  
pp. 669-678.e1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fang Hua ◽  
Lijia Deng ◽  
Chung How Kau ◽  
Han Jiang ◽  
Hong He ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document