《家庭医学临床试验年鉴》(2010-2013)各期方法学和伦理质量检查表评价

Castaño García, Guillen Grima, Leon Sanz
{"title":"《家庭医学临床试验年鉴》(2010-2013)各期方法学和伦理质量检查表评价","authors":"Castaño García, Guillen Grima, Leon Sanz","doi":"10.4172/2327-4972.1000200","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: At present, the quality of the publication of Control Trials (CTs) in medicaljournals improved due to the inclusion of the CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) standards and the Declaration of Helsinki. The aim is to analyse methodological and ethical quality of published CTs in Annals of Family Medicine journal. \nMaterial and methods: We use a 133-item checklist divided into 11 sections based on CONSORT and the Declaration of Helsinki. The Confidence Interval of 95% (95% CI) of Clopper-Pearson for κ average is calculated. \nResults: We found 35 CTs in a literature review (2010-2013) on March 25, 2014 according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis). CT was mentioned in all heading/subheadings; CT controlled parallels in 80%; cluster type 45.7%. The most observed method was masked, active-controlled, decentralized randomization. The most frequently found category was an open CT assessing a medical intervention, with a positive significant result surveyed. The most common Informed Consent (IC) was in writing, not clearly voluntary, without prior knowledge and doubtful. It was not withdrawn in 45.7% of cases. A grant/scholarship was found to be the most frequent incentive for researchers. In 28 CTs there was no conflict of interest. The κ average was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96). \nConclusions: CT published “standard” characteristic are indicated. Following the CONSORT standards publication, it has increased the overall quality of the CTs published. But there are some areas for improvement in the methodological and ethical quality of the CTs published from 2010 to 2013 in Annals of Family Medicine.","PeriodicalId":356612,"journal":{"name":"Family Medicine and Medical Science Research","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methodological and ethical quality checklist assessment in issues of Annals of Family Medicine Clinical Trials (2010-2013)\",\"authors\":\"Castaño García, Guillen Grima, Leon Sanz\",\"doi\":\"10.4172/2327-4972.1000200\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: At present, the quality of the publication of Control Trials (CTs) in medicaljournals improved due to the inclusion of the CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) standards and the Declaration of Helsinki. The aim is to analyse methodological and ethical quality of published CTs in Annals of Family Medicine journal. \\nMaterial and methods: We use a 133-item checklist divided into 11 sections based on CONSORT and the Declaration of Helsinki. The Confidence Interval of 95% (95% CI) of Clopper-Pearson for κ average is calculated. \\nResults: We found 35 CTs in a literature review (2010-2013) on March 25, 2014 according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis). CT was mentioned in all heading/subheadings; CT controlled parallels in 80%; cluster type 45.7%. The most observed method was masked, active-controlled, decentralized randomization. The most frequently found category was an open CT assessing a medical intervention, with a positive significant result surveyed. The most common Informed Consent (IC) was in writing, not clearly voluntary, without prior knowledge and doubtful. It was not withdrawn in 45.7% of cases. A grant/scholarship was found to be the most frequent incentive for researchers. In 28 CTs there was no conflict of interest. The κ average was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96). \\nConclusions: CT published “standard” characteristic are indicated. Following the CONSORT standards publication, it has increased the overall quality of the CTs published. But there are some areas for improvement in the methodological and ethical quality of the CTs published from 2010 to 2013 in Annals of Family Medicine.\",\"PeriodicalId\":356612,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Family Medicine and Medical Science Research\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-02-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Family Medicine and Medical Science Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4172/2327-4972.1000200\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family Medicine and Medical Science Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2327-4972.1000200","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

导读:目前,由于纳入了CONSORT(联合试验报告标准)标准和赫尔辛基宣言,医学期刊上发表对照试验(ct)的质量得到了提高。目的是分析在《家庭医学年鉴》杂志上发表的ct的方法学和伦理质量。材料和方法:根据CONSORT和赫尔辛基宣言,我们使用了一份133项的清单,分为11个部分。计算κ平均值的Clopper-Pearson的95%置信区间(95% CI)。根据PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis),我们在2014年3月25日的一篇文献综述(2010-2013)中发现了35个ct。所有标题/副标题均提及CT;CT控制平行度80%;集群类型45.7%。观察最多的方法是屏蔽、主动控制、分散随机化。最常发现的类别是评估医疗干预的开放式CT,调查结果为积极的显著结果。最常见的知情同意(IC)是书面的,不是明确自愿的,没有事先的知识和怀疑。45.7%的病例未撤销。研究发现,补助金/奖学金是对研究人员最常见的激励措施。在28例ct中没有利益冲突。κ平均值为0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96)。结论:CT显示“标准”特征。随着CONSORT标准的发布,它提高了所发布的ct的整体质量。但2010年至2013年发表在《家庭医学年鉴》(Annals of Family Medicine)上的ct的方法学和伦理质量仍有一些有待改进的地方。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Methodological and ethical quality checklist assessment in issues of Annals of Family Medicine Clinical Trials (2010-2013)
Introduction: At present, the quality of the publication of Control Trials (CTs) in medicaljournals improved due to the inclusion of the CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) standards and the Declaration of Helsinki. The aim is to analyse methodological and ethical quality of published CTs in Annals of Family Medicine journal. Material and methods: We use a 133-item checklist divided into 11 sections based on CONSORT and the Declaration of Helsinki. The Confidence Interval of 95% (95% CI) of Clopper-Pearson for κ average is calculated. Results: We found 35 CTs in a literature review (2010-2013) on March 25, 2014 according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis). CT was mentioned in all heading/subheadings; CT controlled parallels in 80%; cluster type 45.7%. The most observed method was masked, active-controlled, decentralized randomization. The most frequently found category was an open CT assessing a medical intervention, with a positive significant result surveyed. The most common Informed Consent (IC) was in writing, not clearly voluntary, without prior knowledge and doubtful. It was not withdrawn in 45.7% of cases. A grant/scholarship was found to be the most frequent incentive for researchers. In 28 CTs there was no conflict of interest. The κ average was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96). Conclusions: CT published “standard” characteristic are indicated. Following the CONSORT standards publication, it has increased the overall quality of the CTs published. But there are some areas for improvement in the methodological and ethical quality of the CTs published from 2010 to 2013 in Annals of Family Medicine.
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
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信