发表在拉丁美洲护理期刊上的随机对照试验的质量和偏倚:一项荟萃流行病学研究。

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Diana Buitrago-García, Melixa Medina-Aedo, Camila Montesinos-Guevara, Wendy Rodriguez Vargas, Mónica Lozano Hernández, Carlos Alberto Castro, Hector Pardo-Hernandez, Xavier Bonfill
{"title":"发表在拉丁美洲护理期刊上的随机对照试验的质量和偏倚:一项荟萃流行病学研究。","authors":"Diana Buitrago-García, Melixa Medina-Aedo, Camila Montesinos-Guevara, Wendy Rodriguez Vargas, Mónica Lozano Hernández, Carlos Alberto Castro, Hector Pardo-Hernandez, Xavier Bonfill","doi":"10.1111/jnu.70049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for evidence-based nursing care. However, the quality of reporting and adherence to methodological standards in Latin American nursing journals remains unclear. This study evaluates the characteristics, reporting quality, and potential risk of bias of RCTs published in Latin American nursing journals.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the reporting compliance and risk of bias of RCTs published in Latin American nursing journals.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Meta-research study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive handsearch of 29 Latin American nursing journals was performed covering publications from 2000 to 2024. Identified RCTs were assessed for adherence to CONSORT reporting guidelines and evaluated for risk of bias. Outcomes were classified using the COMET taxonomy. A descriptive analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 6377 references were screened, identifying 34 eligible RCTs, most published after 2018. The median CONSORT compliance was 19 reported items (IQR 16-22). High compliance (> 90%) was observed in abstract reporting items, study objectives, and participant selection criteria. However, critical methodological features such as randomization procedures, blinding, and protocol registration showed low adherence (< 40%). Risk of bias was mostly rated as having \"some concerns\", largely due to insufficient reporting. According to the COMET taxonomy, the most frequently reported outcome domains were \"Delivery of care\" and \"Physical functioning\".</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Reporting compliance and risk of bias of RCTs published in Latin American nursing journals presents significant gaps, particularly in key methodological domains. These shortcomings hinder transparency, reproducibility, and integration into evidence synthesis. Strengthening editorial policies and enforcing reporting standards could enhance the quality and reliability of published research in Latin American nursing journals.</p>","PeriodicalId":51091,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nursing Scholarship","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality and Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Latin American Nursing Journals: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.\",\"authors\":\"Diana Buitrago-García, Melixa Medina-Aedo, Camila Montesinos-Guevara, Wendy Rodriguez Vargas, Mónica Lozano Hernández, Carlos Alberto Castro, Hector Pardo-Hernandez, Xavier Bonfill\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jnu.70049\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for evidence-based nursing care. However, the quality of reporting and adherence to methodological standards in Latin American nursing journals remains unclear. This study evaluates the characteristics, reporting quality, and potential risk of bias of RCTs published in Latin American nursing journals.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the reporting compliance and risk of bias of RCTs published in Latin American nursing journals.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Meta-research study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive handsearch of 29 Latin American nursing journals was performed covering publications from 2000 to 2024. Identified RCTs were assessed for adherence to CONSORT reporting guidelines and evaluated for risk of bias. Outcomes were classified using the COMET taxonomy. A descriptive analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 6377 references were screened, identifying 34 eligible RCTs, most published after 2018. The median CONSORT compliance was 19 reported items (IQR 16-22). High compliance (> 90%) was observed in abstract reporting items, study objectives, and participant selection criteria. However, critical methodological features such as randomization procedures, blinding, and protocol registration showed low adherence (< 40%). Risk of bias was mostly rated as having \\\"some concerns\\\", largely due to insufficient reporting. According to the COMET taxonomy, the most frequently reported outcome domains were \\\"Delivery of care\\\" and \\\"Physical functioning\\\".</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Reporting compliance and risk of bias of RCTs published in Latin American nursing journals presents significant gaps, particularly in key methodological domains. These shortcomings hinder transparency, reproducibility, and integration into evidence synthesis. Strengthening editorial policies and enforcing reporting standards could enhance the quality and reliability of published research in Latin American nursing journals.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51091,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Nursing Scholarship\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Nursing Scholarship\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.70049\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nursing Scholarship","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.70049","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:随机对照试验(RCTs)是循证护理的基础。然而,拉丁美洲护理期刊的报告质量和对方法标准的遵守程度仍不清楚。本研究评估了发表在拉丁美洲护理期刊上的随机对照试验的特点、报告质量和潜在偏倚风险。目的:评价发表在拉丁美洲护理期刊上的随机对照试验的报告依从性和偏倚风险。设计:元研究研究。方法:对2000 ~ 2024年出版的29种拉丁美洲护理期刊进行综合手工检索。评估确定的rct是否符合CONSORT报告指南,并评估偏倚风险。使用COMET分类法对结果进行分类。进行描述性分析。结果:共筛选6377篇文献,筛选出34篇符合条件的rct,其中大部分发表于2018年以后。CONSORT依从性中位数为19项(IQR 16-22)。在摘要报告项目、研究目标和参与者选择标准上观察到高依从性(> 90%)。然而,关键的方法学特征,如随机化程序、盲法和方案注册显示出较低的依从性(结论:发表在拉丁美洲护理期刊上的随机对照试验报告依从性和偏倚风险存在显著差距,特别是在关键方法学领域。这些缺点阻碍了透明度、可重复性和证据合成的整合。加强编辑政策和执行报告标准可以提高拉丁美洲护理期刊发表的研究的质量和可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quality and Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Latin American Nursing Journals: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.

Introduction: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for evidence-based nursing care. However, the quality of reporting and adherence to methodological standards in Latin American nursing journals remains unclear. This study evaluates the characteristics, reporting quality, and potential risk of bias of RCTs published in Latin American nursing journals.

Objective: To assess the reporting compliance and risk of bias of RCTs published in Latin American nursing journals.

Design: Meta-research study.

Methods: A comprehensive handsearch of 29 Latin American nursing journals was performed covering publications from 2000 to 2024. Identified RCTs were assessed for adherence to CONSORT reporting guidelines and evaluated for risk of bias. Outcomes were classified using the COMET taxonomy. A descriptive analysis was performed.

Results: A total of 6377 references were screened, identifying 34 eligible RCTs, most published after 2018. The median CONSORT compliance was 19 reported items (IQR 16-22). High compliance (> 90%) was observed in abstract reporting items, study objectives, and participant selection criteria. However, critical methodological features such as randomization procedures, blinding, and protocol registration showed low adherence (< 40%). Risk of bias was mostly rated as having "some concerns", largely due to insufficient reporting. According to the COMET taxonomy, the most frequently reported outcome domains were "Delivery of care" and "Physical functioning".

Conclusions: Reporting compliance and risk of bias of RCTs published in Latin American nursing journals presents significant gaps, particularly in key methodological domains. These shortcomings hinder transparency, reproducibility, and integration into evidence synthesis. Strengthening editorial policies and enforcing reporting standards could enhance the quality and reliability of published research in Latin American nursing journals.

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
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
85
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: This widely read and respected journal features peer-reviewed, thought-provoking articles representing research by some of the world’s leading nurse researchers. Reaching health professionals, faculty and students in 103 countries, the Journal of Nursing Scholarship is focused on health of people throughout the world. It is the official journal of Sigma Theta Tau International and it reflects the society’s dedication to providing the tools necessary to improve nursing care around the world.
×
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