External validity of randomized controlled trials of interventions in venous leg ulceration: A systematic review

被引:7
作者
Gethin, Georgina [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Ivory, John D. [1 ,2 ]
Connell, Lauren [2 ,4 ]
McIntosh, Caroline [2 ,4 ]
Weller, Carolina D. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] NUI Galway, Sch Nursing & Midwifery, Galway, Ireland
[2] NUI Galway, Alliance Res & Innovat Wounds, Galway, Ireland
[3] Monash Univ, Sch Nursing & Midwifery, Clayton, Vic, Australia
[4] NUI Galway, Sch Hlth Sci, Discipline Podiatr Med, Galway, Ireland
基金
澳大利亚国家健康与医学研究理事会;
关键词
ULCERS; PREVALENCE;
D O I
10.1111/wrr.12756
中图分类号
Q2 [细胞生物学];
学科分类号
071009 ; 090102 ;
摘要
We set out to evaluate quality of reporting of data related to external validity from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing treatment interventions for active venous leg ulcers. Using a systematic review study design, we identified 144 full-text RCTs of treatment interventions, where the wound was assessed and published in English from 1998 to 2018. We found that the median study sample size was 75.5. Weighted mean wound size was 13.22 cm(2) and weighted mean wound duration was 22.20 months. Forty-six (32%) reported numbers screened for eligibility and 27 (19%) reported the number who declined to participate; 19 (13%) reported on patient ethnicity; 60 (42%) reported comorbidities; and 5 (4%) reported current medication use. When reported, 60/102 (59%) excluded patients with an ankle-brachial pressure index <0.8; 68/135 (50%) were conducted in Europe, 6/135 (4%) in Asia, and 74/104 (71%) were conducted in outpatient facilities; 3 (2%) reported socioeconomic factors and 88 (61%) reported on adverse events. We concluded that there is inadequate reporting of data related to external validity in reports of RCTs assessing venous leg ulcers treatment interventions. Significant variability exists in the ankle-brachial pressure index cutoff point for inclusion or exclusion, making generalizability difficult to assess.
引用
收藏
页码:702 / 710
页数:9
相关论文
共 36 条
[21]   Variability in response to antihypertensive drugs [J].
Materson, Barry J. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2007, 120 (04) :10-20
[22]  
Schulz Kenneth F, 2010, Open Med, V4, pe60, DOI [10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004, 10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.10.001, 10.1136/bmj.c869]
[23]   Prevalence and aetiology of leg ulcers in Ireland [J].
O'Brien, JF ;
Grace, PA ;
Perry, IJ ;
Burke, PE .
IRISH JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2000, 169 (02) :110-112
[24]  
O'Meara S, 2009, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, DOI [10.1002/14651858.CD000265.pub2, 10.1002/14651858.CD000265.pub3]
[25]   Systematic Review and the External Validity of Randomized Controlled Trials in Lupus Nephritis [J].
Pakozdi, Angela ;
Rajakariar, Ravindra ;
Pyne, Debasish ;
Cove-Smith, Andrea ;
Yaqoob, Muhammad Magdi .
KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL REPORTS, 2018, 3 (02) :403-411
[26]   External validity: the neglected dimension in evidence ranking [J].
Persaud, Navindra ;
Mamdani, Muhammad M. .
JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2006, 12 (04) :450-453
[27]   Investigation of the Effect of Deprivation on the Burden and Management of Venous Leg Ulcers: A Cohort Study Using the THIN Database [J].
Petherick, Emily S. ;
Cullum, Nicky A. ;
Pickett, Kate E. .
PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (03)
[28]  
Posnett J, 2009, J Wound Care, V18, P154
[29]   Factors that can affect the external validity of Rando controlled trials [J].
Rothwell, Peter M. .
PLOS CLINICAL TRIALS, 2006, 1 (01)
[30]   Commentary: External validity of results of randomized trials: disentangling a complex concept [J].
Rothwell, Peter M. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2010, 39 (01) :94-96