评估随机对照试验可信度的核对表(TRACT核对表):概念建议和试点。

IF 7.2 Q1 ETHICS
Ben W Mol, Shimona Lai, Ayesha Rahim, Esmée M Bordewijk, Rui Wang, Rik van Eekelen, Lyle C Gurrin, Jim G Thornton, Madelon van Wely, Wentao Li
{"title":"评估随机对照试验可信度的核对表(TRACT核对表):概念建议和试点。","authors":"Ben W Mol,&nbsp;Shimona Lai,&nbsp;Ayesha Rahim,&nbsp;Esmée M Bordewijk,&nbsp;Rui Wang,&nbsp;Rik van Eekelen,&nbsp;Lyle C Gurrin,&nbsp;Jim G Thornton,&nbsp;Madelon van Wely,&nbsp;Wentao Li","doi":"10.1186/s41073-023-00130-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To propose a checklist that can be used to assess trustworthiness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A screening tool was developed using the four-stage approach proposed by Moher et al. This included defining the scope, reviewing the evidence base, suggesting a list of items from piloting, and holding a consensus meeting. The initial checklist was set-up by a core group who had been involved in the assessment of problematic RCTs for several years. We piloted this in a consensus panel of several stakeholders, including health professionals, reviewers, journal editors, policymakers, researchers, and evidence-synthesis specialists. Each member was asked to score three articles with the checklist and the results were then discussed in consensus meetings.</p><p><strong>Outcome: </strong>The Trustworthiness in RAndomised Clinical Trials (TRACT) checklist includes 19 items organised into seven domains that are applicable to every RCT: 1) Governance, 2) Author Group, 3) Plausibility of Intervention Usage, 4) Timeframe, 5) Drop-out Rates, 6) Baseline Characteristics, and 7) Outcomes. Each item can be answered as either no concerns, some concerns/no information, or major concerns. If a study is assessed and found to have a majority of items rated at a major concern level, then editors, reviewers or evidence synthesizers should consider a more thorough investigation, including assessment of original individual participant data.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The TRACT checklist is the first checklist developed specifically to detect trustworthiness issues in RCTs. It might help editors, publishers and researchers to screen for such issues in submitted or published RCTs in a transparent and replicable manner.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10280869/pdf/","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Checklist to assess Trustworthiness in RAndomised Controlled Trials (TRACT checklist): concept proposal and pilot.\",\"authors\":\"Ben W Mol,&nbsp;Shimona Lai,&nbsp;Ayesha Rahim,&nbsp;Esmée M Bordewijk,&nbsp;Rui Wang,&nbsp;Rik van Eekelen,&nbsp;Lyle C Gurrin,&nbsp;Jim G Thornton,&nbsp;Madelon van Wely,&nbsp;Wentao Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41073-023-00130-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To propose a checklist that can be used to assess trustworthiness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A screening tool was developed using the four-stage approach proposed by Moher et al. This included defining the scope, reviewing the evidence base, suggesting a list of items from piloting, and holding a consensus meeting. The initial checklist was set-up by a core group who had been involved in the assessment of problematic RCTs for several years. We piloted this in a consensus panel of several stakeholders, including health professionals, reviewers, journal editors, policymakers, researchers, and evidence-synthesis specialists. Each member was asked to score three articles with the checklist and the results were then discussed in consensus meetings.</p><p><strong>Outcome: </strong>The Trustworthiness in RAndomised Clinical Trials (TRACT) checklist includes 19 items organised into seven domains that are applicable to every RCT: 1) Governance, 2) Author Group, 3) Plausibility of Intervention Usage, 4) Timeframe, 5) Drop-out Rates, 6) Baseline Characteristics, and 7) Outcomes. Each item can be answered as either no concerns, some concerns/no information, or major concerns. If a study is assessed and found to have a majority of items rated at a major concern level, then editors, reviewers or evidence synthesizers should consider a more thorough investigation, including assessment of original individual participant data.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The TRACT checklist is the first checklist developed specifically to detect trustworthiness issues in RCTs. It might help editors, publishers and researchers to screen for such issues in submitted or published RCTs in a transparent and replicable manner.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74682,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10280869/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00130-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00130-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

目的:提出一种可用于评估随机对照试验可信度的检查表。设计:使用Moher等人提出的四阶段方法开发了一种筛选工具。这包括确定范围、审查证据基础、提出试点项目清单以及召开共识会议。最初的检查表是由一个核心小组建立的,这个小组已经参与评估有问题的随机对照试验好几年了。我们在几个利益相关者的共识小组中进行了试点,包括卫生专业人员、审稿人、期刊编辑、政策制定者、研究人员和证据合成专家。每个成员被要求用清单给三篇文章打分,然后在协商一致的会议上讨论结果。结果:随机临床试验(TRACT)的可信度检查表包括19个项目,分为七个领域,适用于每个RCT: 1)治理,2)作者组,3)干预措施使用的合理性,4)时间框架,5)退出率,6)基线特征,7)结果。每个问题都可以回答为“不关心”、“一些关心/没有信息”或“主要关心”。如果一项研究被评估并发现大多数项目被评为主要关注级别,那么编辑、审稿人或证据综合者应该考虑进行更彻底的调查,包括对原始个体参与者数据的评估。结论:尿道检查表是第一个专门用于检测随机对照试验中可信度问题的检查表。它可能有助于编辑、出版商和研究人员以透明和可复制的方式在提交或发表的随机对照试验中筛选此类问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Checklist to assess Trustworthiness in RAndomised Controlled Trials (TRACT checklist): concept proposal and pilot.

Objectives: To propose a checklist that can be used to assess trustworthiness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Design: A screening tool was developed using the four-stage approach proposed by Moher et al. This included defining the scope, reviewing the evidence base, suggesting a list of items from piloting, and holding a consensus meeting. The initial checklist was set-up by a core group who had been involved in the assessment of problematic RCTs for several years. We piloted this in a consensus panel of several stakeholders, including health professionals, reviewers, journal editors, policymakers, researchers, and evidence-synthesis specialists. Each member was asked to score three articles with the checklist and the results were then discussed in consensus meetings.

Outcome: The Trustworthiness in RAndomised Clinical Trials (TRACT) checklist includes 19 items organised into seven domains that are applicable to every RCT: 1) Governance, 2) Author Group, 3) Plausibility of Intervention Usage, 4) Timeframe, 5) Drop-out Rates, 6) Baseline Characteristics, and 7) Outcomes. Each item can be answered as either no concerns, some concerns/no information, or major concerns. If a study is assessed and found to have a majority of items rated at a major concern level, then editors, reviewers or evidence synthesizers should consider a more thorough investigation, including assessment of original individual participant data.

Conclusions: The TRACT checklist is the first checklist developed specifically to detect trustworthiness issues in RCTs. It might help editors, publishers and researchers to screen for such issues in submitted or published RCTs in a transparent and replicable manner.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信