评估腕管综合征随机对照试验中患者报告结果的少报。

IF 1.4 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Chase Ladd, Samuel M Jacobsen, Kelsey Snider, Rigel Bacani, Cody Hillman, Samuel Shepard, Benjamin Heigle, Ryan Ottwell, Micah Hartwell, Matt Vassar
{"title":"评估腕管综合征随机对照试验中患者报告结果的少报。","authors":"Chase Ladd,&nbsp;Samuel M Jacobsen,&nbsp;Kelsey Snider,&nbsp;Rigel Bacani,&nbsp;Cody Hillman,&nbsp;Samuel Shepard,&nbsp;Benjamin Heigle,&nbsp;Ryan Ottwell,&nbsp;Micah Hartwell,&nbsp;Matt Vassar","doi":"10.1515/jom-2022-0223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>In recent years, patient-centered healthcare has become a primary concern for researchers and healthcare professionals. When included in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures serve a critical role in supplementing efficacy outcomes with a patient perspective.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The goals of this study are to evaluate the reporting completeness of PROs within literature concerning carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) utilizing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Patient-Reported Outcomes (CONSORT-PRO) extension.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for published RCTs relating to CTS with at least one PRO measure from 2006 to 2020. Two investigators screened all RCTs for inclusion utilizing Rayyan (https://rayyan.qcri.org/), a systematic review screening platform. In an independent, masked fashion, investigators then evaluated all RCTs utilizing the CONSORT-PRO adaptation and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 tool. Bivariate regression analyses were utilized to assess relationships between trial characteristics and completeness of reporting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search returned 374 publications, yet only 31 unique RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The mean overall percent of adherence for CONSORT-PRO was 41%. Our secondary outcome-assessing study characteristics-indicated significantly higher completeness of reporting in the absence of a conflict of interest statement (p<0.05), 'some concerns' for bias (p<0.005), and when journals required the use of the CONSORT statement (p<0.005). The RoB assessment determined overall suspicion for bias among included RCTs, with 35% (n=11/31) being labeled as 'high,' 58% (n=18/31) as 'some concerns,' and 7% (n=2/31) as 'low.'</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study indicated that the completeness of CONSORT-PRO reporting was deficient within CTS trials. Because of the importance placed on PROs in clinical practice, we recommend adherence to CONSORT-PRO prior to publication of RCTs to increase the understanding of various interventions on patients' quality of life (QoL).</p>","PeriodicalId":36050,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Osteopathic Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the underreporting of patient-reported outcomes in carpal tunnel syndrome randomized controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Chase Ladd,&nbsp;Samuel M Jacobsen,&nbsp;Kelsey Snider,&nbsp;Rigel Bacani,&nbsp;Cody Hillman,&nbsp;Samuel Shepard,&nbsp;Benjamin Heigle,&nbsp;Ryan Ottwell,&nbsp;Micah Hartwell,&nbsp;Matt Vassar\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/jom-2022-0223\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>In recent years, patient-centered healthcare has become a primary concern for researchers and healthcare professionals. When included in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures serve a critical role in supplementing efficacy outcomes with a patient perspective.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The goals of this study are to evaluate the reporting completeness of PROs within literature concerning carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) utilizing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Patient-Reported Outcomes (CONSORT-PRO) extension.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for published RCTs relating to CTS with at least one PRO measure from 2006 to 2020. Two investigators screened all RCTs for inclusion utilizing Rayyan (https://rayyan.qcri.org/), a systematic review screening platform. In an independent, masked fashion, investigators then evaluated all RCTs utilizing the CONSORT-PRO adaptation and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 tool. Bivariate regression analyses were utilized to assess relationships between trial characteristics and completeness of reporting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search returned 374 publications, yet only 31 unique RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The mean overall percent of adherence for CONSORT-PRO was 41%. Our secondary outcome-assessing study characteristics-indicated significantly higher completeness of reporting in the absence of a conflict of interest statement (p<0.05), 'some concerns' for bias (p<0.005), and when journals required the use of the CONSORT statement (p<0.005). The RoB assessment determined overall suspicion for bias among included RCTs, with 35% (n=11/31) being labeled as 'high,' 58% (n=18/31) as 'some concerns,' and 7% (n=2/31) as 'low.'</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study indicated that the completeness of CONSORT-PRO reporting was deficient within CTS trials. Because of the importance placed on PROs in clinical practice, we recommend adherence to CONSORT-PRO prior to publication of RCTs to increase the understanding of various interventions on patients' quality of life (QoL).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36050,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Osteopathic Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Osteopathic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/jom-2022-0223\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Osteopathic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jom-2022-0223","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:近年来,以患者为中心的医疗保健已成为研究人员和医疗保健专业人员关注的主要问题。当纳入随机对照试验(rct)时,患者报告的结果(PRO)测量在补充患者角度的疗效结果方面起着关键作用。目的:本研究的目的是评估文献中有关腕管综合征(CTS)的PROs报告的完整性,采用合并标准报告试验患者报告的结果(conber - pro)扩展。方法:我们检索了MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane中央对照试验注册库(Central),检索了2006年至2020年期间至少有一项PRO测量的与CTS相关的已发表的随机对照试验。两名研究者使用Rayyan (https://rayyan.qcri.org/)系统评价筛选平台筛选所有随机对照试验。研究者采用独立的、隐蔽性的方式,利用conber - pro适应和Cochrane协作偏倚风险(RoB) 2.0工具评估所有的随机对照试验。采用双变量回归分析来评估试验特征与报告完整性之间的关系。结果:我们检索了374篇出版物,但只有31篇独特的rct符合纳入标准。conther - pro的平均总体依从率为41%。我们的次要结果评估研究特征表明,在没有利益冲突声明的情况下,报告的完整性明显更高(p结论:我们的研究表明,CTS试验中报告的完整性存在缺陷。由于pro在临床实践中的重要性,我们建议在发表随机对照试验之前坚持使用conber - pro,以增加对各种干预措施对患者生活质量(QoL)的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating the underreporting of patient-reported outcomes in carpal tunnel syndrome randomized controlled trials.

Context: In recent years, patient-centered healthcare has become a primary concern for researchers and healthcare professionals. When included in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures serve a critical role in supplementing efficacy outcomes with a patient perspective.

Objectives: The goals of this study are to evaluate the reporting completeness of PROs within literature concerning carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) utilizing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Patient-Reported Outcomes (CONSORT-PRO) extension.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for published RCTs relating to CTS with at least one PRO measure from 2006 to 2020. Two investigators screened all RCTs for inclusion utilizing Rayyan (https://rayyan.qcri.org/), a systematic review screening platform. In an independent, masked fashion, investigators then evaluated all RCTs utilizing the CONSORT-PRO adaptation and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 tool. Bivariate regression analyses were utilized to assess relationships between trial characteristics and completeness of reporting.

Results: Our search returned 374 publications, yet only 31 unique RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The mean overall percent of adherence for CONSORT-PRO was 41%. Our secondary outcome-assessing study characteristics-indicated significantly higher completeness of reporting in the absence of a conflict of interest statement (p<0.05), 'some concerns' for bias (p<0.005), and when journals required the use of the CONSORT statement (p<0.005). The RoB assessment determined overall suspicion for bias among included RCTs, with 35% (n=11/31) being labeled as 'high,' 58% (n=18/31) as 'some concerns,' and 7% (n=2/31) as 'low.'

Conclusions: Our study indicated that the completeness of CONSORT-PRO reporting was deficient within CTS trials. Because of the importance placed on PROs in clinical practice, we recommend adherence to CONSORT-PRO prior to publication of RCTs to increase the understanding of various interventions on patients' quality of life (QoL).

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
Journal of Osteopathic Medicine
Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Health Professions-Complementary and Manual Therapy
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
13.30%
发文量
118
×
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