Risk of bias for randomized controlled trials in Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing,Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing

当前位置： X-MOL 学术 › J. Clin. Monit. Comput. › 论文详情

Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)

Risk of bias for randomized controlled trials in Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing ( IF 2.0 ) Pub Date : 2022-04-26 , DOI: 10.1007/s10877-022-00864-8
Jeong Min Sung ₁ , Ji Yoon Kim ₁ , Bo Seok Kwon ₁ , Kyu Nam Kim ₁

Affiliation

Purpose

Well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered to represent a high level of evidence and influence medical decision-making in evidence-based medicine. When biases occur in study design, processing, and reporting of RCTs, however, it is difficult to interpret results and judge the impact of interventions. Accordingly, we evaluate the quality of RCT reporting published in the Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing (JCMC) using three assessment tools.

Methods

Reporting quality of RCTs published in the JCMC was evaluated through December 31, 2020, using Jadad and van Tulder scales and the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool (CCRBT). Stepwise regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with reporting quality.

Results

Database searches confirmed 132 RCTs in 1,507 original articles. The numbers of RCTs meeting criteria for high reporting quality were 97 (73.5%) using the Jadad scale, 99 (75.0%) using the van Tulder scale, and 19 (14.4%) with the CCRBT. Jadad scores [median score (interquartile range) = 3.0 (2.0–5.0), coefficients (95% CI) = 0.08 (0.04, 0.11), p < 0.001], van Tulder scores [median score (interquartile range) = 7.0 (5.0–8.75), coefficients (95% CI) = 0.15 (0.11, 0.20), p < 0.001], and CCRBT assessment [coefficients (95% CI) = 0.04 (0.02, 0.06), p < 0.001] increased significantly with publication year. The median score (interquartile range) of the last 5 years were 4.0 (3.0–5.0) in Jadad scores, and 8.0 (6.0–9.0) in van Tulder scores. Only 33.3% and 37.1% of articles described detailed blinding and allocation methods, respectively.

Conclusions

Reporting quality increased over time, with consistently high reporting quality in recently published JCMC RCTs.

中文翻译：

Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 中随机对照试验的偏倚风险

目的

设计良好的随机对照试验 (RCT) 被认为代表了高水平的证据并影响循证医学的医疗决策。然而，当随机对照试验的研究设计、处理和报告出现偏倚时，就很难解释结果和判断干预措施的影响。因此，我们使用三种评估工具评估发表在《临床监测与计算杂志》 (JCMC)上的 RCT 报告的质量。

方法

截至 2020 年 12 月 31 日，使用 Jadad 和 van Tulder 量表以及 Cochrane 协作组织的偏倚风险工具 (CCRBT) 评估了 JCMC 中发表的 RCT 的报告质量。进行逐步回归分析以确定与报告质量相关的因素。

结果

数据库搜索确认了 1,507 篇原始文章中的 132 项随机对照试验。符合高质量报告标准的 RCT 数量为 97（73.5%）使用 Jadad 量表，99（75.0%）使用 van Tulder 量表，19（14.4%）使用 CCRBT。Jadad 得分 [中位数得分（四分位数范围）= 3.0 (2.0–5.0)，系数 (95% CI) = 0.08 (0.04, 0.11)，p < 0.001]，van Tulder 得分 [中位数得分（四分位数范围）= 7.0 (5.0 –8.75），系数 (95% CI) = 0.15 (0.11, 0.20), p < 0.001]，CCRBT 评估 [系数 (95% CI) = 0.04 (0.02, 0.06), p < 0.001] 随着出版年份显着增加. 过去 5 年的中位数分数（四分位数范围）在 Jadad 分数中为 4.0（3.0-5.0），在 van Tulder 分数中为 8.0（6.0-9.0）。分别只有 33.3% 和 37.1% 的文章描述了详细的盲法和分配方法。