首页> 外文期刊>Wound repair and regeneration: official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society >Outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews related to wound care: An investigation into prespecification
【24h】

Outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews related to wound care: An investigation into prespecification

机译:结果在Cochrane系统的相关评论伤口护理:一个调查prespecification

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

The choice of outcomes in systematic reviews of the effects of interventions is crucial, dictating which data are included and analyzed. Full prespecification of outcomes in systematic reviews can reduce the risk of outcome reporting bias but, this issue has not been widely investigated. This study is the first to analyze the nature and specification of outcomes used in Cochrane Wounds (CW) systematic reviews. Adequacy of outcome specification was assessed using a five-element framework of key outcome components: outcome domain, specific measurement, specific metric, method of aggregation, and time points. We identified all CW review titles associated with a protocol published on or before October 1, 2014. We categorized all reported outcome domains and recorded whether they were primary or secondary outcomes. We explored outcome specification for outcome domains reported in 25% or more of the eligible protocols. We included 106 protocols and 126 outcome domains; 24.6% (31/126) domains were used as primary outcomes at least once. Eight domains were reported in 25% of protocols: wound healing, quality of life, costs, adverse events, resource use, pain, wound infection, and mortality. Wound healing was the most completely specified outcome domain (median 3; interquartile range [IQR] =1-5) along with resource use (median 3; IQR 2-4). Quality of life (median 1; IQR 1-3), pain (median 1; IQR 1-3), and costs (median 1; IQR 1-4) were the least completely specified outcome domains. Outcomes are frequently poorly prespecified and the elements of metric, aggregation, and time-point are rarely adequately specified. We strongly recommend that reviewers be more vigilant about prespecifying outcomes, using the five-element framework. Better prespecification is likely to improve review quality by reducing bias in data abstraction and analysis, and by reducing subjectivity in the decision of which outcomes to extract; it may also improve outcome specification in clinical trial design and reporting.
机译:系统评价的结果的选择干预措施的影响是至关重要的,规定包括数据和分析。满prespecification系统的结果评论可以减少风险的结果报告偏见,但这个问题并不普遍调查。的性质和规范中使用的结果科克伦伤口(CW)系统评价。结果规范的评估使用五行框架的关键结果组件:结果域,具体测量,具体规、聚合方法和时间点。我们确认所有CW评论标题相关协议发表在10月1日或之前,2014. 并记录他们是否主键或二次结果。规范成果领域报道的25%或更多的符合条件的协议。106协议和126结果域;(31/126)域被用作主要的成果至少一次。协议:伤口愈合,生活质量,成本,不良事件、资源使用、疼痛、伤口感染,死亡率。最有完全指定的结果域(中位数3;资源使用(中位数为3;(平均1;和成本(平均1;完全指定结果域。经常不指定的元素的指标、聚合和时间点很少进行充分的说明。建议评论家保持高度警惕prespecifying结果,使用五行框架。提高审查质量数据中通过减少偏见抽象和分析,通过减少主观决定的结果提取;在临床试验设计和规范报告。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
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