Hui-Hui Liu, Chun-Xiang Su, Zhang-Qi Li, Shu-Jin Yue, Shu-Han Cheng, Di Peng
{"title":"评估护理期刊中经同行评审的出版物与临床试验登记之间的一致性。","authors":"Hui-Hui Liu, Chun-Xiang Su, Zhang-Qi Li, Shu-Jin Yue, Shu-Han Cheng, Di Peng","doi":"10.1111/wvn.12644","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The inconsistencies between randomized clinical trials (RCTs) registrations and peer-reviewed publications may distort trial results and threaten the validity of evidence-based medicine. Previous studies have found many inconsistencies between RCTs registrations and peer-reviewed publications, and outcome reporting bias is prevalent.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aims of this review were to assess whether the primary outcomes and other data reported in publications and registered records in RCTs of nursing journals were consistent and whether discrepancies in the reporting of primary outcomes favored statistically significant results. Moreover, we reviewed the proportion of RCTs for prospective registration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched PubMed for RCTs published in the top 10 nursing journals between March 5, 2020, and March 5, 2022. Registration numbers were extracted from the publications, and registered records were identified from the registration platforms. The publications and registered records were compared to identify consistency. Inconsistencies were subdivided into discrepancies and omissions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 70 RCTs published in seven journals were included. The inconsistencies involved sample size estimation (71.4%), random sequence generation (75.7%), allocation concealment (97.1%), blinding (82.9%), primary outcomes (60.0%) and secondary outcomes (84.3%). Among the inconsistencies in the primary outcomes, 21.4% were due to discrepancies and 38.6% resulted from omissions. Fifty-three percent (8/15) presented discrepancies in the primary outcomes that favored statistically significant results. Additionally, although only 40.0% of the studies were prospective registrations, the number of prospectively registered trials has trended upward over time.</p><p><strong>Linking evidence to action: </strong>While not including all RCTs in the nursing field, our sample reflected a general trend: inconsistencies between publications and trial registrations were prevalent in the included nursing journals. Our research helps to provide a way to improve the transparency of research reports. Ensuring that clinical practice has access to transparent and reliable research results are essential to achieve the best possible evidence-based medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":49355,"journal":{"name":"Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing","volume":" ","pages":"574-581"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of consistency between peer-reviewed publications and clinical trial registrations in nursing journals.\",\"authors\":\"Hui-Hui Liu, Chun-Xiang Su, Zhang-Qi Li, Shu-Jin Yue, Shu-Han Cheng, Di Peng\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/wvn.12644\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The inconsistencies between randomized clinical trials (RCTs) registrations and peer-reviewed publications may distort trial results and threaten the validity of evidence-based medicine. Previous studies have found many inconsistencies between RCTs registrations and peer-reviewed publications, and outcome reporting bias is prevalent.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aims of this review were to assess whether the primary outcomes and other data reported in publications and registered records in RCTs of nursing journals were consistent and whether discrepancies in the reporting of primary outcomes favored statistically significant results. Moreover, we reviewed the proportion of RCTs for prospective registration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched PubMed for RCTs published in the top 10 nursing journals between March 5, 2020, and March 5, 2022. Registration numbers were extracted from the publications, and registered records were identified from the registration platforms. The publications and registered records were compared to identify consistency. Inconsistencies were subdivided into discrepancies and omissions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 70 RCTs published in seven journals were included. The inconsistencies involved sample size estimation (71.4%), random sequence generation (75.7%), allocation concealment (97.1%), blinding (82.9%), primary outcomes (60.0%) and secondary outcomes (84.3%). Among the inconsistencies in the primary outcomes, 21.4% were due to discrepancies and 38.6% resulted from omissions. Fifty-three percent (8/15) presented discrepancies in the primary outcomes that favored statistically significant results. Additionally, although only 40.0% of the studies were prospective registrations, the number of prospectively registered trials has trended upward over time.</p><p><strong>Linking evidence to action: </strong>While not including all RCTs in the nursing field, our sample reflected a general trend: inconsistencies between publications and trial registrations were prevalent in the included nursing journals. Our research helps to provide a way to improve the transparency of research reports. Ensuring that clinical practice has access to transparent and reliable research results are essential to achieve the best possible evidence-based medicine.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49355,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"574-581\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12644\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/4/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12644","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Assessment of consistency between peer-reviewed publications and clinical trial registrations in nursing journals.
Background: The inconsistencies between randomized clinical trials (RCTs) registrations and peer-reviewed publications may distort trial results and threaten the validity of evidence-based medicine. Previous studies have found many inconsistencies between RCTs registrations and peer-reviewed publications, and outcome reporting bias is prevalent.
Aims: The aims of this review were to assess whether the primary outcomes and other data reported in publications and registered records in RCTs of nursing journals were consistent and whether discrepancies in the reporting of primary outcomes favored statistically significant results. Moreover, we reviewed the proportion of RCTs for prospective registration.
Methods: We systematically searched PubMed for RCTs published in the top 10 nursing journals between March 5, 2020, and March 5, 2022. Registration numbers were extracted from the publications, and registered records were identified from the registration platforms. The publications and registered records were compared to identify consistency. Inconsistencies were subdivided into discrepancies and omissions.
Results: A total of 70 RCTs published in seven journals were included. The inconsistencies involved sample size estimation (71.4%), random sequence generation (75.7%), allocation concealment (97.1%), blinding (82.9%), primary outcomes (60.0%) and secondary outcomes (84.3%). Among the inconsistencies in the primary outcomes, 21.4% were due to discrepancies and 38.6% resulted from omissions. Fifty-three percent (8/15) presented discrepancies in the primary outcomes that favored statistically significant results. Additionally, although only 40.0% of the studies were prospective registrations, the number of prospectively registered trials has trended upward over time.
Linking evidence to action: While not including all RCTs in the nursing field, our sample reflected a general trend: inconsistencies between publications and trial registrations were prevalent in the included nursing journals. Our research helps to provide a way to improve the transparency of research reports. Ensuring that clinical practice has access to transparent and reliable research results are essential to achieve the best possible evidence-based medicine.
期刊介绍：
The leading nursing society that has brought you the Journal of Nursing Scholarship is pleased to bring you Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing. Now publishing 6 issues per year, this peer-reviewed journal and top information resource from The Honor Society of Nursing, Sigma Theta Tau International, uniquely bridges knowledge and application, taking a global approach in its presentation of research, policy and practice, education and management, and its link to action in real world settings.
Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing is written especially for:
Clinicians
Researchers
Nurse leaders
Managers
Administrators
Educators
Policymakers
Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing is a primary source of information for using evidence-based nursing practice to improve patient care by featuring:
Knowledge synthesis articles with best practice applications and recommendations for linking evidence to action in real world practice, administra-tive, education and policy settings
Original articles and features that present large-scale studies, which challenge and develop the knowledge base about evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare
Special features and columns with information geared to readers’ diverse roles: clinical practice, education, research, policy and administration/leadership
Commentaries about current evidence-based practice issues and developments
A forum that encourages readers to engage in an ongoing dialogue on critical issues and questions in evidence-based nursing
Reviews of the latest publications and resources on evidence-based nursing and healthcare
News about professional organizations, conferences and other activities around the world related to evidence-based nursing
Links to other global evidence-based nursing resources and organizations.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
