...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Research Methodology >Assignment of adverse event indexing terms in randomized clinical trials involving spinal manipulative therapy: an audit of records in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases
【24h】

Assignment of adverse event indexing terms in randomized clinical trials involving spinal manipulative therapy: an audit of records in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases

机译:在涉及脊椎手法治疗的随机临床试验中分配不良事件索引项:对MEDLINE和EMBASE数据库中的记录进行审核

获取原文
           

摘要

Background Reporting of adverse events in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is encouraged by the authors of The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. With robust methodological design and adequate reporting, RCTs have the potential to provide useful evidence on the incidence of adverse events associated with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). During a previous investigation, it became apparent that comprehensive search strategies combining text words with indexing terms was not sufficiently sensitive for retrieving records that were known to contain reports on adverse events. The aim of this analysis was to compare the proportion of articles containing data on adverse events associated with SMT that were indexed in MEDLINE and/or EMBASE and the proportion of those that included adverse event-related words in their title or . Methods A sample of 140 RCT articles previously identified as containing data on adverse events associated with SMT was used. Articles were checked to determine if: (1) they had been indexed with relevant terms describing adverse events in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases; and (2) they mentioned adverse events (or any related terms) in the title or . Results Of the 140 papers, 91% were MEDLINE records, 85% were EMBASE records, 81% were found in both MEDLINE and EMBASE records, and 4% were not in either database. Only 19% mentioned adverse event-related text words in the title or . There was no significant difference between MEDLINE and EMBASE records in the proportion of available papers ( p =?0.078). Of the 113 papers that were found in both MEDLINE and EMBASE records, only 3% had adverse event-related indexing terms assigned to them in both databases, while 81% were not assigned an adverse event-related indexing term in either database. Conclusions While there was effective indexing of RCTs involving SMT in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, there was a failure of allocation of adverse event indexing terms in both databases. We recommend the development of standardized definitions and reporting tools for adverse events associated with SMT. Adequate reporting of adverse events associated with SMT will facilitate accurate indexing of these types of manuscripts in the databases.
机译:合并临床试验报告标准(CONSORT)声明的作者鼓励在随机临床试验(RCT)中报告不良事件。通过强有力的方法设计和适当的报告,RCT可能为脊柱操纵治疗(SMT)相关不良事件的发生率提供有用的证据。在以前的调查中,很明显,将文字与索引词结合起来的综合搜索策略对于检索已知包含不良事件报告的记录不够敏感。本分析的目的是比较在MEDLINE和/或EMBASE中检索到的包含与SMT相关的不良事件数据的文章的比例,以及在标题或中包含与不良事件相关的词语的文章的比例。方法使用140篇RCT文章样本,该文章先前被确定为包含与SMT相关的不良事件数据。检查文章以确定是否:(1)用MEDLINE和EMBASE数据库中描述不良事件的相关术语对它们进行索引; (2)他们在标题或中提到了不良事件(或任何相关术语)。结果140篇论文中,MEDLINE记录占91%,EMBASE记录占85%,MEDLINE和EMBASE记录中均占81%,两个数据库中均未占4%。在标题或中,只有19%的人提到与不良事件相关的文字。 MEDLINE和EMBASE记录之间在可用论文的比例上没有显着差异(p =?0.078)。在MEDLINE和EMBASE记录中找到的113篇论文中,只有3%在两个数据库中都分配了与不良事件相关的索引词,而在两个数据库中没有81%没有分配与不良事件相关的索引词。结论虽然在MEDLINE和EMBASE数据库中有效地索引了涉及SMT的RCT,但在两个数据库中均未分配不良事件索引项。我们建议针对与SMT相关的不良事件开发标准化的定义和报告工具。与SMT相关的不良事件的充分报告将有助于在数据库中准确索引这些类型的手稿。

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