膝骨关节炎家庭康复随机对照试验的方法学质量:一项横断面调查

Caglar Meran Meltem, Unver Bayram, Caglar Engin
{"title":"膝骨关节炎家庭康复随机对照试验的方法学质量:一项横断面调查","authors":"Caglar Meran Meltem, Unver Bayram, Caglar Engin","doi":"10.28982/josam.1114280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background/Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examine home-based rehabilitation (HBR) trials for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale and the nine methodology-related items of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement. \nMethods: Three electronic databases were scanned from baseline to October 10, 2021. Two reviewers independently evaluated the articles according to the two inclusion criteria: (1) in individuals diagnosed with KOA, at least one group received home-based rehabilitation as a study intervention and (2) at least one group received a comparison intervention or no intervention. The methodological quality of the included studies (n=22) was assessed using the PEDro scale and nine items of the CONSORT 2010 statement. \nResults: Among 1557 RCTs, 22 studies that fulfilled our criteria were included in the review. The mean PEDro scale score was 5.77 (1.54). This result reflects moderate methodological quality. Concealed allocation (6; 27.3%), blinding of subjects (4; 18.2%), and (0; 0.0%) of therapists associated with the methodological quality were not reported in most studies. An author’s expertise in epidemiology and/or statistics was 0.78 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.11–1.44), the multicenter study 0.94 points (95% CI: 0.19–1.68), and a one-unit increase in the total score of the CONSORT statement led to an increase in methodological quality of 0.55 points (95% CI: 0.34–0.76). \nConclusion: The methodological quality of most RCTs examining HBR in KOA that we included in our systematic review was moderate. The adherence of journals and authors to CONSORT checklists in reporting of studies may lead to an improvement in the methodological quality of future published studies.","PeriodicalId":30878,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Surgery and Medicine","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of home-based rehabilitation in knee osteoarthritis: A cross-sectional survey\",\"authors\":\"Caglar Meran Meltem, Unver Bayram, Caglar Engin\",\"doi\":\"10.28982/josam.1114280\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background/Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examine home-based rehabilitation (HBR) trials for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale and the nine methodology-related items of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement. \\nMethods: Three electronic databases were scanned from baseline to October 10, 2021. Two reviewers independently evaluated the articles according to the two inclusion criteria: (1) in individuals diagnosed with KOA, at least one group received home-based rehabilitation as a study intervention and (2) at least one group received a comparison intervention or no intervention. The methodological quality of the included studies (n=22) was assessed using the PEDro scale and nine items of the CONSORT 2010 statement. \\nResults: Among 1557 RCTs, 22 studies that fulfilled our criteria were included in the review. The mean PEDro scale score was 5.77 (1.54). This result reflects moderate methodological quality. Concealed allocation (6; 27.3%), blinding of subjects (4; 18.2%), and (0; 0.0%) of therapists associated with the methodological quality were not reported in most studies. An author’s expertise in epidemiology and/or statistics was 0.78 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.11–1.44), the multicenter study 0.94 points (95% CI: 0.19–1.68), and a one-unit increase in the total score of the CONSORT statement led to an increase in methodological quality of 0.55 points (95% CI: 0.34–0.76). \\nConclusion: The methodological quality of most RCTs examining HBR in KOA that we included in our systematic review was moderate. The adherence of journals and authors to CONSORT checklists in reporting of studies may lead to an improvement in the methodological quality of future published studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30878,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Surgery and Medicine\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Surgery and Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.28982/josam.1114280\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Surgery and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.28982/josam.1114280","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

背景/目的:本研究旨在评估随机对照试验(rct)的方法学质量,这些随机对照试验(rct)使用物理治疗证据数据库(PEDro)量表和2010年联合试验报告标准(CONSORT)声明的9个方法学相关项目来检查膝关节骨关节炎(KOA)的家庭康复(HBR)试验。方法:从基线至2021年10月10日对3个电子数据库进行扫描。两名审稿人根据两项纳入标准独立评估文章:(1)在确诊为KOA的个体中,至少一组接受以家庭为基础的康复作为研究干预;(2)至少一组接受比较干预或不进行干预。纳入研究(n=22)的方法学质量采用PEDro量表和CONSORT 2010声明中的9个项目进行评估。结果:在1557项随机对照试验中,22项研究符合我们的标准。平均PEDro评分为5.77分(1.54分)。这个结果反映了一般的方法学质量。隐蔽分配(6;27.3%),受试者的盲法(4;18.2%), (0;0.0%)与方法学质量相关的治疗师在大多数研究中未被报道。作者在流行病学和/或统计学方面的专业知识为0.78分(95%可信区间[CI] 0.11-1.44),多中心研究为0.94分(95% CI: 0.19-1.68), CONSORT声明总分每增加一个单位,方法学质量就会增加0.55分(95% CI: 0.34-0.76)。结论:我们纳入系统评价的大多数检查KOA患者HBR的随机对照试验的方法学质量是中等的。期刊和作者在研究报告中遵守CONSORT检查表可能会提高未来发表研究的方法学质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of home-based rehabilitation in knee osteoarthritis: A cross-sectional survey
Background/Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examine home-based rehabilitation (HBR) trials for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale and the nine methodology-related items of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement. Methods: Three electronic databases were scanned from baseline to October 10, 2021. Two reviewers independently evaluated the articles according to the two inclusion criteria: (1) in individuals diagnosed with KOA, at least one group received home-based rehabilitation as a study intervention and (2) at least one group received a comparison intervention or no intervention. The methodological quality of the included studies (n=22) was assessed using the PEDro scale and nine items of the CONSORT 2010 statement. Results: Among 1557 RCTs, 22 studies that fulfilled our criteria were included in the review. The mean PEDro scale score was 5.77 (1.54). This result reflects moderate methodological quality. Concealed allocation (6; 27.3%), blinding of subjects (4; 18.2%), and (0; 0.0%) of therapists associated with the methodological quality were not reported in most studies. An author’s expertise in epidemiology and/or statistics was 0.78 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.11–1.44), the multicenter study 0.94 points (95% CI: 0.19–1.68), and a one-unit increase in the total score of the CONSORT statement led to an increase in methodological quality of 0.55 points (95% CI: 0.34–0.76). Conclusion: The methodological quality of most RCTs examining HBR in KOA that we included in our systematic review was moderate. The adherence of journals and authors to CONSORT checklists in reporting of studies may lead to an improvement in the methodological quality of future published studies.
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
57
审稿时长
6 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