Bias in experimental nursing research: Strategies to improve the quality and explanatory power of nursing science

被引：21

作者：

Borglin, Gunilla ^{[1
]}

Richards, David A. ^{[2
]}

机构：

[1] Blekinge Inst Technol, Sch Hlth Sci, S-37971 Blekinge, Sweden

[2] Univ Exeter, Sch Psychol, Mood Disorders Ctr, Exeter EX4 4QG, Devon, England

来源：

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NURSING STUDIES | 2010年 / 47卷 / 01期

关键词：

Evidence-based nursing; Research methods; CONSORT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS; HEALTH-CARE; CONSORT STATEMENT; INTERVENTIONS;

D O I：

10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.06.016

中图分类号：

R47 [护理学];

学科分类号：

1011 ;

摘要：

In a guest editorial in this journal, Rahm Hallberg [Rahm Hallberg, I., 2006. Challenges for future nursing research: providing evidence for health-care practice. international Journal of Nursing Studies 43, 923-927] called for research which has greater explanatory power to determine the effectiveness of nursing interventions. in this paper we critique the suggestion made by the evidence-based nursing movement that randomisation per se is the principal route to better quality nursing research. In contrast, we evaluate the new CONSORT criteria for pragmatic RCTs, which assess the quality of strategies to reduce selection, performance, attrition and detection biases, allowing many different types of comparative studies to be covered by application of the checklist. We propose that randomisation alone is a necessary but insufficient strategy and that nursing researchers rise to Rahm Hallberg's challenge by adopting the extended criteria to assist in the critical appraisal, design and reporting of all experimental research in nursing. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

引用

页码：123 / 128

页数：6

共 32 条

[1] The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration [J].