Dataset Information

Quality of evidence in a post-Soviet country: evaluation of methodological quality of controlled clinical trials published in national journals from Uzbekistan.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Most researchers in Uzbekistan prefer to publish their reports in journals of their home country. Moreover, the proportion of healthcare practitioners who prefer to use these national sources of information also remains high. However, the quality of publications from national journals, in post-Soviet countries, has not been systematically evaluated until now. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials' (RCTs) reports published in medical journals from Uzbekistan. We supposed that reports had at least minimal quality to contribute to the higher quality of healthcare. METHODS:To evaluate the quality of RCTs, we selected two journals from the list of national medical journals for which background information was provided. We decided to select articles from journals that had the highest subscription rate and were likely to have the highest impact on clinical decisions. The journals were Medical Journal of Uzbekistan and Paediatrics. Only issues published in 2007-2017 were considered for evaluation. Two evaluators independently scored RCTs and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) reported in the journals. The 5-point scale developed by Jadad et al. was used to evaluate the quality of reports. Consensus-based decision was made about the final score of each report. RESULTS:We reviewed 1311 studies in the two journals and found 380 clinical trials reports for the final evaluation. Our main finding was that none of the reports received a final score of more than 1, with an absolute agreement between evaluators. A median score of the studied reports was equal to 0, predicting a very low quality of controlled trials reported in the national journals (Wilcoxon signed-rank test p?=?1.0; 95% CI?=?0-0). CONCLUSIONS:We believe that quality of reports about controlled trials, in Uzbekistan, can be considered insufficient to contribute to the higher quality of care and patients' safety. In the worst case, such condition can cause serious damage to the public health and lead to ineffective use of resources in the country. Therefore, the better reporting and organization of RCTs and CCTs should become a main goal of all stakeholders interested in the effective and safe healthcare in the country.

SUBMITTER: Aripov T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7359460 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality of evidence in a post-Soviet country: evaluation of methodological quality of controlled clinical trials published in national journals from Uzbekistan.

Aripov Timur T Aniyozova Dilfuza D Gorbunova Irina I

BMC medical research methodology 20200713 1

<h4>Background</h4>Most researchers in Uzbekistan prefer to publish their reports in journals of their home country. Moreover, the proportion of healthcare practitioners who prefer to use these national sources of information also remains high. However, the quality of publications from national journals, in post-Soviet countries, has not been systematically evaluated until now. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials' (RCTs) reports publish ...[more]

PMID: 32660442

Similar Datasets

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:ObjectivesPublished 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.DesignA 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.ResultsSeven 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.ConclusionsThere 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.

Project description:BackgroundThe objective of this study was to describe randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in child health published between 1948 and 2006, in terms of quantity, methodological quality, and publication and trial characteristics. We used the Trials Register of the Cochrane Child Health Field for overall trends and a sample from this to explore trial characteristics in more detail.Methodology/principal findingsWe extracted descriptive data on a random sample of 578 trials. Ninety-six percent of the trials were published in English; the percentage of child-only trials was 90.5%. The most frequent diagnostic categories were infectious diseases (13.2%), behavioural and psychiatric disorders (11.6%), neonatal critical care (11.4%), respiratory disorders (8.9%), non-critical neonatology (7.9%), and anaesthesia (6.5%). There were significantly fewer child-only studies (i.e., more mixed child and adult studies) over time (P = 0.0460). The proportion of RCTs to CCTs increased significantly over time (P<0.0001), as did the proportion of multicentre trials (P = 0.002). Significant increases over time were found in methodological quality (Jadad score) (P<0.0001), the proportion of double-blind studies (P<0.0001), and studies with adequate allocation concealment (P<0.0001). Additionally, we found an improvement in reporting over time: adequate description of withdrawals and losses to follow-up (P<0.0001), sample size calculations (P<0.0001), and intention-to-treat analysis (P<0.0001). However, many trials still do not describe their level of blinding, and allocation concealment was inadequately reported in the majority of studies across the entire time period. The proportion of studies with industry funding decreased slightly over time (P = 0.003), and these studies were more likely to report positive conclusions (P = 0.028).Conclusions/significanceThe quantity and quality of pediatric controlled trials has increased over time; however, much work remains to be done, particularly in improving methodological issues around conduct and reporting of trials.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To analyse the completeness of reporting of blinding in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions in anaesthesiology, the actual blinding status of various persons associated with an RCT and trial authors' interpretation of blinding terminology related to RCTs. METHODS:This was a methodological study and a cross-sectional survey. We analysed reporting related to blinding in published RCTs of interventions published in seven highly cited anaesthesiology journals from 2014 to 2016 and registered protocols in ClinicalTrials.gov. We surveyed corresponding authors of included RCTs about their definitions of blinding. The primary outcome was the number of RCTs that explicitly described who was blinded in a trial. Secondary outcomes were definitions of blinding terminology in the trials; trial authors' interpretation of blinding terminology; discrepancies in the blinding description within registered protocols and between registered protocols and publications. RESULTS:Out of 622 analysed RCTs, 38% were not explicitly described as either open label or blinded studies and 10% did not report any information about blinding or lack of blinding. Only one manuscript fully reported the status of blinding for various individuals that may be involved with a trial. The most common descriptor was that a trial was double-blind. We found discrepant information regarding blinding in the majority of registered protocols. Even when there were no discrepancies in the registration, we found discrepancies in the reporting of blinding between the majority of registered protocols and published manuscripts. The survey of authors (40 responses from 231 eligible authors; 17% response rate) of analysed RCTs showed that they differed in how they defined different levels of blinding in trials. CONCLUSIONS:Reporting of the blinding status of key individuals involved in analysed anaesthesiology RCTs was insufficient. For reporting guidelines, peer reviewers and editors should insist on clear information on who was blinded in a trial instead of using the term 'double-blind' for different blinding practices.

Project description:BackgroundThe approximately 1100 medical journals now active in China are publishing a rapidly increasing number of research reports, including many studies identified by their authors as randomized controlled trials. It has been noticed that these reports mostly present positive results, and their quality and authenticity have consequently been called into question. We investigated the adequacy of randomization of clinical trials published in recent years in China to determine how many of them met acceptable standards for allocating participants to treatment groups.MethodsThe China National Knowledge Infrastructure electronic database was searched for reports of randomized controlled trials on 20 common diseases published from January 1994 to June 2005. From this sample, a subset of trials that appeared to have used randomization methods was selected. Twenty-one investigators trained in the relevant knowledge, communication skills and quality control issues interviewed the original authors of these trials about the participant randomization methods and related quality-control features of their trials.ResultsFrom an initial sample of 37,313 articles identified in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, we found 3137 apparent randomized controlled trials. Of these, 1452 were studies of conventional medicine (published in 411 journals) and 1685 were studies of traditional Chinese medicine (published in 352 journals). Interviews with the authors of 2235 of these reports revealed that only 207 studies adhered to accepted methodology for randomization and could on those grounds be deemed authentic randomized controlled trials (6.8%, 95% confidence interval 5.9-7.7). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of authenticity between randomized controlled trials of traditional interventions and those of conventional interventions. Randomized controlled trials conducted at hospitals affiliated to medical universities were more likely to be authentic than trials conducted at level 3 and level 2 hospitals (relative risk 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.18-2.13, and relative risk 14.42, 95% confidence interval 9.40-22.10, respectively). The likelihood of authenticity was higher in level 3 hospitals than in level 2 hospitals (relative risk 9.32, 95% confidence interval 5.83-14.89). All randomized controlled trials of pre-market drug clinical trial were authentic by our criteria. Of the trials conducted at university-affiliated hospitals, 56.3% were authentic (95% confidence interval 32.0-81.0).ConclusionMost reports of randomized controlled trials published in some Chinese journals lacked an adequate description of randomization. Similarly, most so called 'randomized controlled trials' were not real randomized controlled trials owing to a lack of adequate understanding on the part of the authors of rigorous clinical trial design. All randomized controlled trials of pre-market drug clinical trial included in this research were authentic. Randomized controlled trials conducted by authors in high level hospitals, especially in hospitals affiliated to medical universities had a higher rate of authenticity. That so many non-randomized controlled trials were published as randomized controlled trials reflected the fact that peer review needs to be improved and a good practice guide for peer review including how to identify the authenticity of the study urgently needs to be developed.

Project description:BackgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not always well reported, especially in terms of their methodological descriptions. This study aimed to investigate the adherence of methodological reporting complying with CONSORT and explore associated trial level variables in the Chinese nursing care field.MethodsIn June 2012, we identified RCTs published in five leading Chinese nursing journals and included trials with details of randomized methods. The quality of methodological reporting was measured through the methods section of the CONSORT checklist and the overall CONSORT methodological items score was calculated and expressed as a percentage. Meanwhile, we hypothesized that some general and methodological characteristics were associated with reporting quality and conducted a regression with these data to explore the correlation. The descriptive and regression statistics were calculated via SPSS 13.0.ResultsIn total, 680 RCTs were included. The overall CONSORT methodological items score was 6.34 ± 0.97 (Mean ± SD). No RCT reported descriptions and changes in "trial design," changes in "outcomes" and "implementation," or descriptions of the similarity of interventions for "blinding." Poor reporting was found in detailing the "settings of participants" (13.1%), "type of randomization sequence generation" (1.8%), calculation methods of "sample size" (0.4%), explanation of any interim analyses and stopping guidelines for "sample size" (0.3%), "allocation concealment mechanism" (0.3%), additional analyses in "statistical methods" (2.1%), and targeted subjects and methods of "blinding" (5.9%). More than 50% of trials described randomization sequence generation, the eligibility criteria of "participants," "interventions," and definitions of the "outcomes" and "statistical methods." The regression analysis found that publication year and ITT analysis were weakly associated with CONSORT score.ConclusionsThe completeness of methodological reporting of RCTs in the Chinese nursing care field is poor, especially with regard to the reporting of trial design, changes in outcomes, sample size calculation, allocation concealment, blinding, and statistical methods.

Project description:BACKGROUND:A crucial element in the systematic review (SR) methodology is the appraisal of included primary studies, using tools for assessment of methodological quality or risk of bias (RoB). SR authors can conduct sensitivity analyses to explore whether their results are sensitive to exclusion of low quality studies or a high RoB. However, it is unknown which tools do SR authors use for assessing quality/RoB, and how they set threshold for quality/RoB in sensitivity analyses. The aim of this study was to assess quality/RoB assessment tools, the types of sensitivity analyses and quality/RoB thresholds for sensitivity analyses used within SRs published in high-impact pain/anesthesiology journals. METHODS:This was a methodological study. We analyzed SRs published from January 2005 to June 2018 in the 25% highest-ranking journals within the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) "Anesthesiology" category. We retrieved the SRs from PubMed. Two authors independently screened records, full texts, and extracted data on quality/RoB tools and sensitivity analyses. We extracted data about quality/RoB tools, types of sensitivity analyses and the thresholds for quality/RoB used in them. RESULTS:Out of 678 analyzed SRs, 513 (76%) reported the use of quality/RoB assessments. The most commonly reported tools for assessing quality/RoB in the studies were the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment (N?=?251; 37%) and Jadad scale (N?=?99; 15%). Meta-analysis was conducted in 451 (66%) of SRs and sensitivity analysis in 219/451 (49%). Most commonly, sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the influence of study quality/RoB (90/219; 41%) on the results. Quality/RoB thresholds used for sensitivity analysis for those studies were clearly reported in 47 (52%) articles that used them. The quality/RoB thresholds used for sensitivity analyses were highly heterogeneous and inconsistent, even when the same tool was used. CONCLUSIONS:A quarter of SRs reported using quality/RoB assessments, and some of them cited tools that are not meant for assessing quality/RoB. Authors who use quality/RoB to explore the robustness of their results in meta-analyses use highly heterogeneous quality/RoB thresholds in sensitivity analyses. Better methodological consistency for quality/RoB sensitivity analyses is needed.

Project description:Objectives (1) To assess endorsement of trial registration in author instructions of urology-related journals and (2) to assess whether randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of urology were effectively registered. Design Cross-sectional study of author instructions and published trials. Setting Journals publishing in the field of urology. Participants First, the authors analysed author instructions of 55 urology-related journals indexed in 'Journal Citation Reports 2009' (12/2010). The authors divided these journals in two groups: those requiring and those not mentioning trial registration as a precondition for publication. Second, the authors chose the five journals with the highest impact factor (IF) from each group. Intervention MEDLINE search to identify RCTs published in these 10 journals in 2009 (01/2011); search of the clinical trials meta-search interface of WHO (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) for RCTs that lacked information about registration (01-03/2011). Two authors independently assessed the information. Outcome measures Proportion of journals providing advice about trial registration and proportion of trials registered. Results Of 55 journals analysed, 26 (47.3%) provided some editorial advice about trial registration. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration explicitly (p=0.015). Of 106 RCTs published in 2009, 63 were registered (59.4%) with a tendency to an increase after 2005 (83.3%, p=0.035). 71.4% (30/42) of the RCTs that were published in journals mentioning and requiring registration, and 51.6% (33/64) of the RCTs that were published in journals that did not mention trial registration explicitly were registered. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.04). Conclusions The existence of a statement about trial registration in author instructions resulted in a higher proportion of registered RCTs in those journals. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration.

Dataset Information

Quality of evidence in a post-Soviet country: evaluation of methodological quality of controlled clinical trials published in national journals from Uzbekistan.

Publications

Quality of evidence in a post-Soviet country: evaluation of methodological quality of controlled clinical trials published in national journals from Uzbekistan.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets