Reliability of the risk of bias assessment in randomized controlled trials for nursing: A cross-sectional study

IF 1.9 4区医学 Q2 NURSING

International Journal of Nursing Practice Pub Date : 2024-10-10 DOI:10.1111/ijn.13302

Yi Yao MD, Nian Li PhD, Jieling Li MM, Jia Feng MM, Jingxin Ma MM, Xiaoyang Liao MM, Yonggang Zhang PhD

{"title":"Reliability of the risk of bias assessment in randomized controlled trials for nursing: A cross-sectional study","authors":"Yi Yao MD, Nian Li PhD, Jieling Li MM, Jia Feng MM, Jingxin Ma MM, Xiaoyang Liao MM, Yonggang Zhang PhD","doi":"10.1111/ijn.13302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate the percentage and reasons for disagreements in the risk of bias (RoB) assessments for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in more than one Cochrane review in the field of nursing.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Disagreement in RoB assessments reduces the credibility of the evidence summarized by systematic reviews (SRs). There is no study that evaluates the reliability of RoB assessments in nursing studies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>Secondary data analysis based on research reports.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>RCTs included in more than one review in the nursing have been included. The disagreement of the assessment was analysed, and the possible reasons for disagreements were investigated.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Twenty-three RCTs were included in more than one review. The agreement of assessment ranged from 36.84% for “selective reporting” to 91.30% for “random sequence generation”. “Allocation concealment” showed the optimal agreement (84.21%). The items “blinding of participants and personnel”, “blinding of outcome assessment” and “incomplete outcome data” showed poor agreement, with 50.00%, 58.82% and 66.67%, respectively. Most disagreements came from extracting incomplete or different RCTs' information.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The level of agreement of the assessment between reviews has varied greatly in the field of nursing. More complete and accurate information of RCTs needs to be collected when conducting a SR.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14223,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Nursing Practice","volume":"30 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Nursing Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijn.13302","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim

To evaluate the percentage and reasons for disagreements in the risk of bias (RoB) assessments for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in more than one Cochrane review in the field of nursing.

Background

Disagreement in RoB assessments reduces the credibility of the evidence summarized by systematic reviews (SRs). There is no study that evaluates the reliability of RoB assessments in nursing studies.

Design

Secondary data analysis based on research reports.

Methods

RCTs included in more than one review in the nursing have been included. The disagreement of the assessment was analysed, and the possible reasons for disagreements were investigated.

Results

Twenty-three RCTs were included in more than one review. The agreement of assessment ranged from 36.84% for “selective reporting” to 91.30% for “random sequence generation”. “Allocation concealment” showed the optimal agreement (84.21%). The items “blinding of participants and personnel”, “blinding of outcome assessment” and “incomplete outcome data” showed poor agreement, with 50.00%, 58.82% and 66.67%, respectively. Most disagreements came from extracting incomplete or different RCTs' information.

Conclusions

The level of agreement of the assessment between reviews has varied greatly in the field of nursing. More complete and accurate information of RCTs needs to be collected when conducting a SR.

查看原文本刊更多论文

护理随机对照试验中偏倚风险评估的可靠性：一项横断面研究。

目的：评估护理领域中一篇以上的 Cochrane 综述中纳入的随机对照试验（RCT）在偏倚风险（RoB）评估中出现分歧的百分比和原因：背景：RoB 评估中的分歧降低了系统综述（SR）所总结证据的可信度。目前还没有研究对护理研究中 RoB 评估的可靠性进行评估：设计：基于研究报告的二次数据分析：方法：纳入一篇以上护理综述中的 RCT。结果：共纳入 23 项 RCT，其中包括一项以上的护理综述：结果：有 23 项研究纳入了不止一项综述。评估结果的一致性从 "选择性报告 "的 36.84%到 "随机序列生成 "的 91.30%不等。"分配隐藏 "的一致性最佳（84.21%）。而 "参与者和人员的盲法"、"结果评估的盲法 "和 "结果数据不完整 "三项的一致性较差，分别为 50.00%、58.82% 和 66.67%。大多数分歧来自于提取不完整或不同的 RCT 信息：结论：在护理领域，综述间评估的一致程度差异很大。结论：在护理领域，综述间评估的一致程度存在很大差异，在进行SR时需要收集更完整、更准确的RCT信息。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

International Journal of Nursing Practice NURSING-

CiteScore

4.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： International Journal of Nursing Practice is a fully refereed journal that publishes original scholarly work that advances the international understanding and development of nursing, both as a profession and as an academic discipline. The Journal focuses on research papers and professional discussion papers that have a sound scientific, theoretical or philosophical base. Preference is given to high-quality papers written in a way that renders them accessible to a wide audience without compromising quality. The primary criteria for acceptance are excellence, relevance and clarity. All articles are peer-reviewed by at least two researchers expert in the field of the submitted paper.