首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Research Methodology >A systematic review of cluster randomised trials in residential facilities for older people suggests how to improve quality
【24h】

A systematic review of cluster randomised trials in residential facilities for older people suggests how to improve quality

机译:一项针对老年人居住设施的整群随机试验的系统评价提出了如何提高质量的建议

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Background Previous reviews of cluster randomised trials have been critical of the quality of the trials reviewed, but none has explored determinants of the quality of these trials in a specific field over an extended period of time. Recent work suggests that correct conduct and reporting of these trials may require more than published guidelines. In this review, our aim was to assess the quality of cluster randomised trials conducted in residential facilities for older people, and to determine whether (1) statistician involvement in the trial and (2) strength of journal endorsement of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement influence quality. Methods We systematically identified trials randomising residential facilities for older people, or parts thereof, without language restrictions, up to the end of 2010, using National Library of Medicine (Medline) via PubMed and hand-searching. We based quality assessment criteria largely on the extended CONSORT statement for cluster randomised trials. We assessed statistician involvement based on statistician co-authorship, and strength of journal endorsement of the CONSORT statement from journal websites. Results 73 trials met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 20 (27%) reported accounting for clustering in sample size calculations and 54 (74%) in the analyses. In 29 trials (40%), methods used to identify/recruit participants were judged by us to have potentially caused bias or reporting was unclear to reach a conclusion. Some elements of quality improved over time but this appeared not to be related to the publication of the extended CONSORT statement for these trials. Trials with statistician/epidemiologist co-authors were more likely to account for clustering in sample size calculations (unadjusted odds ratio 5.4, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 26.0) and analyses (unadjusted OR 3.2, 1.2 to 8.5). Journal endorsement of the CONSORT statement was not associated with trial quality. Conclusions Despite international attempts to improve methods in cluster randomised trials, important quality limitations remain amongst these trials in residential facilities. Statistician involvement on trial teams may be more effective in promoting quality than further journal endorsement of the CONSORT statement. Funding bodies and journals should promote statistician involvement and co-authorship in addition to adherence to CONSORT guidelines.
机译:背景先前对整群随机试验的评价对所评价试验的质量至关重要,但没有人探索过特定时间段内这些试验质量的决定因素。最近的工作表明,对这些试验的正确进行和报告可能需要比已发布的指南更多的内容。在本次审查中,我们的目的是评估在老年人居住设施中进行的整群随机试验的质量,并确定(1)统计学家是否参与该试验以及(2)期刊认可《合并报告标准》的强度。 (CONSORT)语句影响质量。方法截至2010年底,我们使用国家医学图书馆(Medline)通过PubMed进行了人工搜索,系统地确定了无语言限制的针对老年人或部分居民的居住设施的随机化试验。我们的质量评估标准主要基于扩展的CONSORT语句,用于集群随机试验。我们根据统计学家的合著者以及期刊网站对CONSORT声明的期刊认可程度来评估统计学家的参与程度。结果73项试验符合我们的纳入标准。在这些样本中,有20个(27%)报告在样本量计算中占聚类,在分析中有54个(74%)。在29项试验(占40%)中,我们认为用于识别/招募参与者的方法可能引起偏见,或者尚不清楚报告是否得出结论。随着时间的推移,一些质量要素有所改善,但这似乎与这些试验的扩展CONSORT声明的发布无关。由统计学家/流行病学共同作者进行的试验更有可能在样本量计算(未调整的优势比5.4,95%置信区间1.1至26.0)和分析(未调整的OR 3.2,1.2至8.5)中考虑聚类。期刊对CONSORT声明的认可与审判质量无关。结论尽管进行了国际尝试以改善聚类随机试验的方法,但在住宅设施的这些试验中仍存在重要的质量限制。统计员参与试验团队可能比提高期刊对CONSORT声明的认可更有效地提高了质量。除遵守CONSORT准则外,资助机构和期刊还应促进统计学家的参与和合著。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号