【24h】

Methodological reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in three spine journals from 2010 to 2012

机译:2010年至2012年三种脊柱杂志的随机对照试验的方法学报告质量

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Purpose: To elucidate the methodological reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in three spine journals from 2010 to 2012. Methods: In this study, we summarized the methodological report of RCTs in three major spine journals, including the Spine Journal, Spine and the European Spine Journal from 2010 to 2012. The methodological reporting quality, including the allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding and sample size calculation, was revealed. Number of patients, funding source, type of intervention and country were also retrieved from each trial. The methodological reporting quality was descriptively reported. Results: Ninety trials were involved and 57.8 % (52/90) reported adequate allocation sequence generation, 46.7 % (42/90) reported adequate allocation concealment, 34.4 % (31/90) reported adequate blinding and 37.8 % (34/90) reported adequate sample size calculation. Conclusions: This study shows that the methodological reporting quality of RCTs in the spine field needs further improvement.
机译:目的:为了阐明2010年至2012年间三种脊柱期刊的随机对照试验(RCT)的方法学报告质量。方法:在本研究中,我们总结了三种主要脊柱期刊的RCT的方法学报告,包括《脊柱杂志》,《脊柱杂志》和《脊柱杂志》。在2010年至2012年期间获得《欧洲脊柱杂志》的资助。揭示了方法报告质量,包括分配序列的生成,分配隐藏,盲目化和样本量计算。从每个试验中还检索了患者数量,资金来源,干预类型和国家。描述性的报告方法学报告质量。结果:进行了90次试验,其中57.8%(52/90)报告了足够的分配序列生成,46.7%(42/90)报告了足够的分配隐藏,34.4%(31/90)报告了足够的盲目性,37.8%(34/90)报告了足够的样本量计算。结论:这项研究表明,脊柱领域RCT的方法学报告质量有待进一步提高。

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