...
首页> 外文期刊>Trials >The quality of reporting in cluster randomised crossover trials: proposal for reporting items and an assessment of reporting quality
【24h】

The quality of reporting in cluster randomised crossover trials: proposal for reporting items and an assessment of reporting quality

机译:集群随机交叉试验的报告质量:报告项目建议和报告质量评估

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Background The cluster randomised crossover (CRXO) design is gaining popularity in trial settings where individual randomisation or parallel group cluster randomisation is not feasible or practical. Our aim is to stimulate discussion on the content of a reporting guideline for CRXO trials and to assess the reporting quality of published CRXO trials. Methods We undertook a systematic review of CRXO trials. Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus as well as citation searches of CRXO methodological articles were conducted to December 2014. Reporting quality was assessed against both modified items from 2010 CONSORT and 2012 cluster trials extension and other proposed quality measures. Results Of the 3425 records identified through database searching, 83 trials met the inclusion criteria. Trials were infrequently identified as “cluster randomis(z)ed crossover” in title ( n =?7, 8%) or ( n =?21, 25%), and a rationale for the design was infrequently provided ( n =?20, 24%). Design parameters such as the number of clusters and number of periods were well reported. Discussion of carryover took place in only 17 trials (20%). Sample size methods were only reported in 58% ( n =?48) of trials. A range of approaches were used to report baseline characteristics. The analysis method was not adequately reported in 23% ( n =?19) of trials. The observed within-cluster within-period intracluster correlation and within-cluster between-period intracluster correlation for the primary outcome data were not reported in any trial. The potential for selection, performance, and detection bias could be evaluated in 30%, 81%, and 70% of trials, respectively. Conclusions There is a clear need to improve the quality of reporting in CRXO trials. Given the unique features of a CRXO trial, it is important to develop a CONSORT extension. Consensus amongst trialists on the content of such a guideline is essential.
机译:背景技术集群随机交叉(CRXO)设计在试验环境中越来越受欢迎,在这种情况下,个体随机化或并行组集群随机化不可行或不可行。我们的目的是激发对CRXO试验报告指南内容的讨论,并评估已发表的CRXO试验报告的质量。方法我们对CRXO试验进行了系统评价。截至2014年12月,对MEDLINE,EMBASE和CINAHL Plus进行了检索,并对CRXO方法论文章进行了引文检索。针对2010 CONSORT和2012年群试验扩展项中的修改项目以及其他拟议的质量措施,对报告质量进行了评估。结果在通过数据库搜索确定的3425条记录中,有83项试验符合纳入标准。很少将标题为(n =?7,8%)或(n =?21,25%)的试验称为“集群随机交叉”,并且很少提供设计依据(n =?20 ,24%)。诸如簇数和周期数之类的设计参数得到了很好的报告。关于结转的讨论仅进行了17次审判(20%)。仅在58%(n = 48)的试验中报告了样本量方法。使用了一系列方法来报告基线特征。在23%的试验中未充分报告分析方法(n =?19)。在任何试验中均未报告观察到的主要结果数据的群集内周期内群集内相关性和群集内周期内群集内相关性。可能分别在30%,81%和70%的试验中评估选择潜力,性能和检测偏倚。结论显然需要提高CRXO试验报告的质量。鉴于CRXO试用版的独特功能,开发CONSORT扩展很重要。试验者之间就这种准则的内容达成共识至关重要。

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