...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Clinical Epidemiology >Citation analysis did not provide a reliable assessment of core outcome set uptake
【24h】

Citation analysis did not provide a reliable assessment of core outcome set uptake

机译:引文分析没有提供对核心结果集的可靠评估

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Abstract Objectives The aim of the study was to evaluate citation analysis as an approach to measuring core outcome set (COS) uptake, by assessing whether the number of citations for a COS report could be used as a surrogate measure of uptake of the COS by clinical trialists. Study Design and Setting Citation data were obtained for COS reports published before 2010 in five disease areas (systemic sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, eczema, sepsis and critical care, and female sexual dysfunction). Those publications identified as a report of a clinical trial were examined to identify whether or not all outcomes in the COS were measured in the trial. Results Clinical trials measuring the relevant COS made up a small proportion of the total number of citations for COS reports. Not all trials citing a COS report measured all the recommended outcomes. Some trials cited the COS reports for other reasons, including the definition of a condition or other trial design issues addressed by the COS report. Conclusion Although citation data can be readily accessed, it should not be assumed that the citing of a COS report indicates that a trial has measured the recommended COS. Alternative methods for assessing COS uptake are needed.
机译:摘要目标本研究的目的是评估引文分析作为测量核心结果集(COS)摄取的方法,通过评估COS报告的引文数量是否可以用作临床摄取COS的替代衡量标准试验医生。在5月之前发表的第五次疾病区域(全身硬化症,类风湿性关节炎,湿疹,败血症和致命关注以及女性性功能障碍),获得了研究设计和设定引文数据。审查了那些被确定为临床试验报告的出版物,以确定CO中的所有结果是否在试验中衡量。结果临床试验测量相关的COS占COS报告总数的少量比例。并非所有试验都引用了COS报告的所有推荐结果。有些试验引用了COS报告的其他原因,包括COS报告解决的条件或其他试验设计问题的定义。结论虽然可以容易地访问引文数据,但不应假设COS报告的引用表明试验已经测量了推荐的COS。需要评估COS摄取的替代方法。

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