Dataset Information

Comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in Indian medical journals: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Published negative studies should have the same rigour of methodological quality as studies with positive findings. However, the methodological quality of negative versus positive studies is not known. The objective was to assess the reported methodological quality of positive versus negative studies published in Indian medical journals.A systematic review (SR) was performed of all comparative studies published in Indian medical journals with a clinical science focus and impact factor >1 between 2011 and 2013. The methodological quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies. The results were considered positive if the primary outcome was statistically significant and negative otherwise. When the primary outcome was not specified, we used data on the first outcome reported in the history followed by the results section. Differences in various methodological quality domains between positive versus negative studies were assessed by Fisher's exact test.Seven journals with 259 comparative studies were included in this SR. 24% (63/259) were RCTs, 24% (63/259) cohort studies, and 49% (128/259) case-control studies. 53% (137/259) of studies explicitly reported the primary outcome. Five studies did not report sufficient data to enable us to determine if results were positive or negative. Statistical significance was determined by p value in 78.3% (199/254), CI in 2.8% (7/254), both p value and CI in 11.8% (30/254), and only descriptive in 6.3% (16/254) of studies. The overall methodological quality was poor and no statistically significant differences between reporting of methodological quality were detected between studies with positive versus negative findings.There was no difference in the reported methodological quality of positive versus negative studies. However, the uneven reporting of positive versus negative studies (72% vs 28%) indicates a publication bias in Indian medical journals with an impact factor of >1.

SUBMITTER: Charan J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4480020 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in Indian medical journals: a systematic review.

Charan Jaykaran J Chaudhari Mayur M Jackson Ryan R Mhaskar Rahul R Reljic Tea T Kumar Ambuj A

BMJ open 20150624 6

<h4>Objectives</h4>Published negative studies should have the same rigour of methodological quality as studies with positive findings. However, the methodological quality of negative versus positive studies is not known. The objective was to assess the reported methodological quality of positive versus negative studies published in Indian medical journals.<h4>Design</h4>A systematic review (SR) was performed of all comparative studies published in Indian medical journals with a clinical science ...[more]

PMID: 26109118

Similar Datasets

Project description:Good quality medical research generally requires not only an expertise in the chosen medical field of interest but also a sound knowledge of statistical methodology. The number of medical research articles which have been published in Indian medical journals has increased quite substantially in the past decade. The aim of this study was to collate all evidence on study design quality and statistical analyses used in selected leading Indian medical journals. Ten (10) leading Indian medical journals were selected based on impact factors and all original research articles published in 2003 (N = 588) and 2013 (N = 774) were categorized and reviewed. A validated checklist on study design, statistical analyses, results presentation, and interpretation was used for review and evaluation of the articles. Main outcomes considered in the present study were - study design types and their frequencies, error/defects proportion in study design, statistical analyses, and implementation of CONSORT checklist in RCT (randomized clinical trials). From 2003 to 2013: The proportion of erroneous statistical analyses did not decrease (χ2=0.592, Φ=0.027, p=0.4418), 25% (80/320) in 2003 compared to 22.6% (111/490) in 2013. Compared with 2003, significant improvement was seen in 2013; the proportion of papers using statistical tests increased significantly (χ2=26.96, Φ=0.16, p<0.0001) from 42.5% (250/588) to 56.7 % (439/774). The overall proportion of errors in study design decreased significantly (χ2=16.783, Φ=0.12 p<0.0001), 41.3% (243/588) compared to 30.6% (237/774). In 2013, randomized clinical trials designs has remained very low (7.3%, 43/588) with majority showing some errors (41 papers, 95.3%). Majority of the published studies were retrospective in nature both in 2003 [79.1% (465/588)] and in 2013 [78.2% (605/774)]. Major decreases in error proportions were observed in both results presentation (χ2=24.477, Φ=0.17, p<0.0001), 82.2% (263/320) compared to 66.3% (325/490) and interpretation (χ2=25.616, Φ=0.173, p<0.0001), 32.5% (104/320) compared to 17.1% (84/490), though some serious ones were still present. Indian medical research seems to have made no major progress regarding using correct statistical analyses, but error/defects in study designs have decreased significantly. Randomized clinical trials are quite rarely published and have high proportion of methodological problems.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological quality of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in leading critical care nursing journals against the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Abstracts (CONSORT-A) checklist and to identify variables related with abstract reporting quality.DesignDescriptive methodological quality review.Data sourceWe searched the PubMed database and the websites of each included journal.Eligibility criteriaWe included RCT abstracts published between 2011 and 2021 in the first 11 Scopus-ranking (2021) critical care nursing journals that reported the results of RCTs in English that referred to the care of adult patients with acute/critical illness or their relatives and/or caregivers and conducted in ICUs.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent investigators extracted the data using a prespecified 17-item checklist directly derived from CONSORT-A. For the primary outcome, each item was evaluated whether it was adequately reported or not and descriptive statistics were reported. An overall score was calculated by summing the results of all items and multivariate linear regression was conducted to detect potential predictors.ResultsSeventy-eight RCT abstracts were included in this review. The items with the highest CONSORT-A adherence were authors, objective, conclusion, participants, interventions and outcome. The randomisation item had the lowest CONSORT-A adherence, followed by trial registration, funding source, harms or side effects, recruitment, blinding and outcome results. The average CONSORT-A score was 8.5±1.5 points (of the maximum 17.5 points). Multivariate analysis indicated that the categorised word score and publication date were positively associated with the overall CONSORT-A score, while the first author's country being in Asia was negatively associated with the overall CONSORT-A score.ConclusionsThe 78 RCT abstracts showed poor overall adherence to CONSORT-A. The results indicate that the methodological reporting quality of RCT abstracts in critical care nursing journals requires improvement to facilitate assessment of the applicability and relevance of the results reported.

Project description:Importance:Multiple analyses in a clinical trial can increase the probability of inaccurately concluding that there is a statistically significant treatment effect. However, to date, it is unknown how many randomized clinical trials (RCTs) perform adjustments for multiple comparisons, the lack of which could lead to erroneous findings. Objectives:To assess the prevalence of multiplicity and whether appropriate multiplicity adjustments were performed among cardiovascular RCTs published in 6 medical journals with a high impact factor. Design, Setting, and Participants:In this cross-sectional study, cardiovascular RCTs were selected from all over the world, characterized as North America, Western Europe, multiregional, and rest of the world. Data were collected from past issues of 3 cardiovascular journals (Circulation, European Heart Journal, and Journal of the American College of Cardiology) and 3 general medicine journals (JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine) with high impact factors published between August 1, 2015, and July 31, 2018. Supplements and trial protocols of each of the included RCTs were also searched for multiplicity. Data were analyzed December 20 to 27, 2018. Exposures:Data from the selected RCTs were extracted and verified independently by 2 researchers using a structured data instrument. In case of disagreement, a third reviewer helped to achieve consensus. An RCT was considered to have multiple treatment groups if it had more than 2 arms; multiple outcomes were defined as having more than 1 primary outcome, and multiple analyses were defined as analysis of the same outcome variable in multiple ways. Multiplicity was examined only for the analysis of the primary end point. Main Outcomes and Measures:Outcomes of interest were percentages of primary analyses that performed multiplicity adjustment of primary end points. Results:Of 511 cardiovascular RCTs included in this analysis, 300 (58.7%) had some form of multiplicity; of these 300, only 85 (28.3%) adjusted for multiplicity. Intervention type and funding source had no statistically significant association with the reporting of multiplicity risk adjustment. Trials that assessed mortality vs nonmortality outcomes were more likely to contain a multiplicity risk in their primary analysis (66.3% [177 of 267] vs 50.4% [123 of 244]; P?<?.001), and larger trials vs smaller trials were less likely to make any adjustments for multiplicity (35.6% [52 of 146] vs 21.4% [33 of 154]; P?=?.001). Conclusions and Relevance:Findings from this study suggest that cardiovascular RCTs published in medical journals with high impact factors demonstrate infrequent adjustments to correct for multiple comparisons in the primary end point. These parameters may be improved by more standardized reporting.

Project description:IntroductionOver the last years, the number of systematic reviews published is steadily increasing due to the global interest in this type of evidence synthesis. However, little is known about the characteristics of this research published in Portuguese medical journals. This study aims to evaluate the publication trends and overall quality of these systematic reviews.Material and methodsThis was a methodological study. We aimed the most visible Portuguese medical journals indexed in MEDLINE. Systematic reviews were identified through an electronic search (through PUBMED). We included systematic reviews published up to August 2020. Systematic reviews selection and data extraction were done independently by three authors. The overall quality critical appraisal using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) was independently assessed by three authors. Disagreements were solved by consensus.ResultsSixty-six systematic reviews published in 5 Portuguese medical journals were included. Most (n = 53; 80.3%) were systematic reviews without meta-analysis. Up to 2010 there was a steady increase in the number of systematic reviews published, followed by a period of great variability of publication, ranging from 1 to 10 in a given year. According to the systematic reviews' typology, most have been predominantly conducted to assess the effectiveness/efficacy of health interventions (n = 27; 40.9%). General and Internal Medicine (n = 20; 30.3%) was the most addressed field. Most systematic reviews (n = 46; 69.7%) were rated as being of "critically low-quality".ConclusionsThere were consistent flaws in the methodological quality report of the systematic reviews included, particularly in establishing a prior protocol and not assessing the potential impact of the risk of bias on the results. Through the years, the number of systematic reviews published increased, yet their quality is suboptimal. There is a need to improve the reporting of systematic reviews in Portuguese medical journals, which can be achieved by better adherence to quality checklists/tools.

Dataset Information

Comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in Indian medical journals: a systematic review.

Publications

Comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in Indian medical journals: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets