Reporting and methodological quality in evidence-based medicine studies in burn surgery.

摘要

We read with great interest the recent article by Danilla and coworkers discussing the methodological quality in burn care randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [1]. We would like to comment upon some methodological shortcomings. Danilla et al. mentioned in the discussion the difficulty of separating methodological and reporting quality. We estimate that these need to be clearly distinguished because it is possible that a poorly reported study is well designed and executed and a well-reported one may have several shortcomings and vice versa. Further, an adequate reporting quality is necessary to determine the methodological quality of a given study [2]. Therefore, we think that accessing both reporting and methodological qualities would be a more comprehensive way of evaluating a given study, leading potentially to a better internal validity and a more reliable interpretation.