...
首页> 外文期刊>BMJ Open >Quality improvement needed in quality improvement randomised trials: systematic review of interventions to improve care in diabetes
【24h】

Quality improvement needed in quality improvement randomised trials: systematic review of interventions to improve care in diabetes

机译:质量改善随机试验中需要的质量改善:对改善糖尿病护理的干预措施的系统评价

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Objective Despite the increasing numbers of published trials of quality improvement (QI) interventions in diabetes, little is known about the risk of bias in this literature. Design Secondary analysis of a systematic review. Data sources Medline, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) database (from inception to July 2010) and references of included studies. Eligibility criteria Randomised trials assessing 11 predefined QI strategies or financial incentives targeting health systems, healthcare professionals or patients to improve the management of adult outpatients with diabetes. Analysis Risk of bias (low, unclear or high) was assessed for the 142 trials in the review across nine domains using the EPOC version of the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. We used Cochran-Armitage tests for trends to evaluate the improvement over time. Results There was no significant improvement over time in any of the risk of bias domains. Attrition bias (loss to follow-up) was the most common source of bias, with 24 trials (17%) having high risk of bias due to incomplete outcome data. Overall, 69 trials (49%) had at least one domain with high risk of bias. Inadequate reporting frequently hampered the risk of bias assessment: allocation sequence was unclear in 82 trials (58%) and allocation concealment was unclear in 78 trials (55%). There were significant reductions neither in the proportions of studies at high risk of bias over time nor in the adequacy of reporting of risk of bias domains. Conclusions Nearly half of the included QI trials in this review were judged to have high risk of bias. Such trials have serious limitations that put the findings in question and therefore inhibit evidence-based QI. There is a need to limit the potential for bias when conducting QI trials and improve the quality of reporting of QI trials so that stakeholders have adequate evidence for implementation.
机译:目的尽管已发表有关糖尿病质量改善(QI)干预的试验的数目不断增加,但在该文献中对偏倚风险的了解甚少。设计对系统评价进行二次分析。数据来源Medline,Cochrane有效实践和护理组织(EPOC)数据库(从成立到2010年7月)以及纳入研究的参考文献。资格标准随机试验评估11种针对健康系统,医疗保健专业人员或患者的预定义QI策略或经济激励措施,以改善成人糖尿病门诊患者的管理。分析使用EPOC版本的Cochrane偏倚风险工具对9个领域的142个试验进行了偏倚风险(低,不清楚或较高)的评估。我们使用Cochran-Armitage检验趋势,以评估随时间的改进。结果随时间推移,任何偏倚域风险均无显着改善。损耗偏倚(随访损失)是最常见的偏倚来源,有24项试验(占17%)由于结局数据不完整而具有较高的偏倚风险。总体而言,有69个试验(占49%)具有至少一个偏倚风险高的领域。报告不足经常会影响偏倚评估的风险:82项试验(58%)中的分配顺序不清楚,而78项试验中(55%)的分配隐匿性不清楚。随着时间的推移,偏倚风险较高的研究比例和偏倚域风险报告的充分性都没有显着降低。结论本评价纳入的QI试验中,近一半被认为具有较高的偏倚风险。这样的试验有严重的局限性,使发现成为问题,因此抑制了循证QI。有必要限制进行质量保证试验时产生偏见的可能性,并提高质量保证试验报告的质量,以便利益相关者有足够的实施证据。

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