Dataset Information

Quality of reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in diabetes in Iran; a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: To determine the quality of randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) reports in diabetes research in Iran.Systematized review.We included RCTs conducted on diabetes mellitus in Iran. Animal studies, educational interventions, and non-randomized trials were excluded. We excluded duplicated publications reporting the same groups of participants and intervention. Two independent reviewers identify all eligible articles specifically designed data extraction form. We searched through international databases; Scopus, ProQuest, EBSCO, Science Direct, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed; and national databases (In Persian language) such as Magiran, Scientific Information Database (SID) and IranMedex from January 1995 to January of 2013 Two investigators assessed the quality of reporting by CONSORT 2010 (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) checklist statemen.t,. Discrepancies were resolved by third reviewer consulting.One hundred and eight five (185) studies were included and appraised. Half of them (55.7 %) were published in Iranian journals. Most (89.7 %) were parallel RCTs, and being performed on type2 diabetic patients (77.8 %). Less than half of the CONSORT items (43.2 %) were reported in studies, totally. The reporting of randomization and blinding were poor. A few studies 15.1 % mentioned the method of random sequence generation and strategy of allocation concealment. And only 34.8 % of trials report how blinding was applied.The findings of this study show that the quality of RCTs conducted in Iran in diabetes research seems suboptimal and the reporting is also incomplete however an increasing trend of improvement can be seen over time. Therefore, it is suggested Iranian researchers pay much more attention to design and methodological quality in conducting and reporting of diabetes RCTs.

SUBMITTER: Gohari F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5015251 | biostudies-other | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAfter the publication of the CONSORT 2010 statement, few studies have been conducted to assess the reporting quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on treatment of diabetes mellitus with Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) published in Chinese journals.ObjectiveTo investigate the current situation of the reporting quality of RCTs in leading medical journals in China with the CONSORT 2010 statement as criteria.MethodsThe China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) electronic database was searched for RCTs on the treatment of diabetes mellitus with TCM published in the Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional & Western Medicine, and the China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica from January to December 2011. We excluded trials reported as "animal studies", "in vitro studies", "case studies", or "systematic reviews". The CONSORT checklist was applied by two independent raters to evaluate the reporting quality of all eligible trials after discussing and comprehending the items thoroughly. Each item in the checklist was graded as either "yes" or "no" depending on whether it had been reported by the authors.ResultsWe identified 27 RCTs. According to the 37 items in the CONSORT checklist, the average reporting percentage was 45.0%, in which the average reporting percentage for the "title and abstract", the "introduction", the "methods", the "results", the "discussion" and the "other information" was 33.3%, 88.9%, 36.4%, 54.4%, 71.6% and 14.8%, respectively. In the Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional & Western Medicine, and the China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica the average reporting percentage was 42.2%, 56.8%, and 46.0%, respectively.ConclusionsThe reporting quality of RCTs in these three journals was insufficient to allow readers to assess the validity of the trials. We recommend that editors require authors to use the CONSORT statement when reporting their trial results as a condition of publication.

Project description:Vitamin D is a nutrient potentially beneficial in the treatment of depression. The study aimed to carry out a systematic review of the studies assessing the influence of vitamin D supplementation on depression within Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). The systematic review was prepared on the basis of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42020155779). The peer-reviewed studies available within PubMed or Web of Science databases until September 2021 were taken into account. The number of screened records was 8514, and 8 records were included. Two independent researchers conducted screening, including, reporting, and risk of bias assessment using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The included studies presented a population of patients with major depressive disorders or general depression, as well as bipolar depression or postpartum depression. The majority of included studies were conducted for 8 weeks or 12 weeks, while one study was conducted for 6 months. Within the large number of included studies, a daily dose of 1500 IU, 1600 IU, or 2800 IU was applied, while within some studies, a vitamin D dose of 50,000 IU was applied weekly or biweekly. Among applied psychological measures of depression, there were various tools. In spite of the fact that the majority of included studies (five studies) supported the positive effect of vitamin D supplementation for the psychological measure of depression, for three studies the positive influence was not supported. A medium risk of bias was indicated for six studies, while a high risk of bias was defined for only two studies, due to deviations from the intended interventions and in measurement of the outcome, as well as for one study, also arising from the randomization process and due to missing outcome data. Based on conducted assessment, it should be emphasized that there are only four studies supporting the positive influence of vitamin D supplementation for the psychological measure of depression of the medium risk of bias, while two studies of a medium risk of bias did not support it. Taking this into account, the conducted systematic review is not a strong confirmation of the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation in the treatment of depression.

Dataset Information

Quality of reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in diabetes in Iran; a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets