伊朗假肢和矫形术领域随机对照试验方法和报告质量的缺陷:一项系统综述。

IF 1.4 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Saeed Shahabi, Carlotte Kiekens, Parviz Mojgani, Chiara Arienti, Shabnam ShahAli, Kamran Bagheri Lankarani
{"title":"伊朗假肢和矫形术领域随机对照试验方法和报告质量的缺陷:一项系统综述。","authors":"Saeed Shahabi,&nbsp;Carlotte Kiekens,&nbsp;Parviz Mojgani,&nbsp;Chiara Arienti,&nbsp;Shabnam ShahAli,&nbsp;Kamran Bagheri Lankarani","doi":"10.2174/1574887118666230221114201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Due to the development of the academic field of prosthetics and orthotics (P&O) in recent years, scientific studies in this domain have increased. However, relevant published studies, especially randomized controlled trials (RCTs), are not always of acceptable quality. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of RCTs in the field of P&O in Iran to recognize existing shortcomings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, were searched from January 1, 2000, to July 15, 2022. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was applied to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. In addition, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 checklist was used to assess the reporting quality of the included studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>35 RCTs published from 2007 to 2021 were included in our final analysis. The methodological quality of 18 RCTs was poor, and the quality of the rest of the studies was good (n = 7) or fair (n = 10). In addition, the median score (IQR) of the reporting quality of RCTs in accordance with the CONSORT items was 18 (13-24.5) out of 35. The results of the relationship analysis indicated a moderate correlation between the CONSORT score and the publication year of the included RCTs. Nonetheless, there was a low correlation between the CONSORT scores and the journals' impact factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The overall methodological and reporting quality of RCTs in the field of P&O in Iran was not found to be optimal. To enhance the methodological quality, some items should be considered more strictly, such as blinding of outcome assessment, allocation concealment, and random sequence generation. Furthermore, the criteria of CONSORT, as reporting quality checklist, should be adopted in writing the papers, especially methods-related items.</p>","PeriodicalId":21174,"journal":{"name":"Reviews on recent clinical trials","volume":"18 2","pages":"92-111"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Deficits of the Methodological and Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Field of Prosthetics and Orthotics in Iran: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Saeed Shahabi,&nbsp;Carlotte Kiekens,&nbsp;Parviz Mojgani,&nbsp;Chiara Arienti,&nbsp;Shabnam ShahAli,&nbsp;Kamran Bagheri Lankarani\",\"doi\":\"10.2174/1574887118666230221114201\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Due to the development of the academic field of prosthetics and orthotics (P&O) in recent years, scientific studies in this domain have increased. However, relevant published studies, especially randomized controlled trials (RCTs), are not always of acceptable quality. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of RCTs in the field of P&O in Iran to recognize existing shortcomings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, were searched from January 1, 2000, to July 15, 2022. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was applied to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. In addition, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 checklist was used to assess the reporting quality of the included studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>35 RCTs published from 2007 to 2021 were included in our final analysis. The methodological quality of 18 RCTs was poor, and the quality of the rest of the studies was good (n = 7) or fair (n = 10). In addition, the median score (IQR) of the reporting quality of RCTs in accordance with the CONSORT items was 18 (13-24.5) out of 35. The results of the relationship analysis indicated a moderate correlation between the CONSORT score and the publication year of the included RCTs. Nonetheless, there was a low correlation between the CONSORT scores and the journals' impact factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The overall methodological and reporting quality of RCTs in the field of P&O in Iran was not found to be optimal. To enhance the methodological quality, some items should be considered more strictly, such as blinding of outcome assessment, allocation concealment, and random sequence generation. Furthermore, the criteria of CONSORT, as reporting quality checklist, should be adopted in writing the papers, especially methods-related items.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reviews on recent clinical trials\",\"volume\":\"18 2\",\"pages\":\"92-111\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reviews on recent clinical trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2174/1574887118666230221114201\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reviews on recent clinical trials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1574887118666230221114201","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:近年来,由于假肢矫形学(P&O)学术领域的发展,这一领域的科学研究越来越多。然而,相关已发表的研究,特别是随机对照试验(rct),并不总是具有可接受的质量。因此,本研究旨在评估伊朗P&O领域随机对照试验的方法和报告质量,以发现存在的不足。方法:检索2000年1月1日至2022年7月15日PubMed、Scopus、Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials和物理治疗证据数据库6个电子数据库。应用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评价纳入研究的方法学质量。此外,采用2010年综合试验报告标准(CONSORT)检查表评估纳入研究的报告质量。结果:我们的最终分析纳入了2007年至2021年发表的35项随机对照试验。18项rct的方法学质量较差,其余研究的质量较好(n = 7)或一般(n = 10)。此外,根据CONSORT项目的rct报告质量的中位数得分(IQR)为18(13-24.5)。相关性分析的结果表明,CONSORT评分与纳入的rct的发表年份之间存在中度相关性。尽管如此,CONSORT得分与期刊的影响因子之间的相关性很低。结论:伊朗P&O领域的随机对照试验的总体方法和报告质量并非最佳。为了提高方法学的质量,一些项目需要更严格的考虑,如结果评估的盲化、分配隐藏、随机序列生成等。此外,在撰写论文时应采用CONSORT的标准,作为报告质量检查表,特别是与方法有关的项目。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Deficits of the Methodological and Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Field of Prosthetics and Orthotics in Iran: A Systematic Review.

Introduction: Due to the development of the academic field of prosthetics and orthotics (P&O) in recent years, scientific studies in this domain have increased. However, relevant published studies, especially randomized controlled trials (RCTs), are not always of acceptable quality. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of RCTs in the field of P&O in Iran to recognize existing shortcomings.

Methods: Six electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, were searched from January 1, 2000, to July 15, 2022. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was applied to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. In addition, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 checklist was used to assess the reporting quality of the included studies.

Results: 35 RCTs published from 2007 to 2021 were included in our final analysis. The methodological quality of 18 RCTs was poor, and the quality of the rest of the studies was good (n = 7) or fair (n = 10). In addition, the median score (IQR) of the reporting quality of RCTs in accordance with the CONSORT items was 18 (13-24.5) out of 35. The results of the relationship analysis indicated a moderate correlation between the CONSORT score and the publication year of the included RCTs. Nonetheless, there was a low correlation between the CONSORT scores and the journals' impact factors.

Conclusion: The overall methodological and reporting quality of RCTs in the field of P&O in Iran was not found to be optimal. To enhance the methodological quality, some items should be considered more strictly, such as blinding of outcome assessment, allocation concealment, and random sequence generation. Furthermore, the criteria of CONSORT, as reporting quality checklist, should be adopted in writing the papers, especially methods-related items.

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
Reviews on recent clinical trials
Reviews on recent clinical trials PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
5.30%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials publishes frontier reviews on recent clinical trials of major importance. The journal"s aim is to publish the highest quality review articles in the field. Topics covered include: important Phase I – IV clinical trial studies, clinical investigations at all stages of development and therapeutics. The journal is essential reading for all researchers and clinicians involved in drug therapy and clinical trials.
×
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