An assessment of the quality of reporting randomised controlled trials published in paediatric dentistry journals

被引：10

作者：

Rajasekharan S. ^{[1
]}

Vandenbulcke J. ^{[1
]}

Martens L. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Department of Paediatric Dentistry and Special Care, PaeCaMeD Research, Ghent University, UZ Ghent, 1P8, De Pintelaan 185, Ghent

来源：

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry | 2015年 / 16卷 / 2期

关键词：

CONSORT; Randomised controlled trial;

D O I：

10.1007/s40368-014-0153-9

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Aim: The objectives of this study are to compare the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2011 and 2012 within five paediatric dentistry journals. Study design: RCTs published in the years 2011 and 2012 were hand-searched by one reviewer. After randomisation and blinding, these journals were independently scored by two blinded reviewers based on the CONSORT 2010 checklist. Methods: A total of 59 articles were included for analysis and 70 criteria were scored dichotomously as ‘1’ when reported and ‘0’ when not reported. Descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA tests were performed. Results: The Gwets AC1 Inter rater reliability coefficient was calculated as 0.85 (95 % C.I 0.84–0.86) indicating excellent correlation between the two reviewers. Only 19 articles (32.2 %) reported more than half (35/70) of the expected criteria. Descriptive statistics showed that sections such as introduction, results and discussion were reported better than abstract, materials and methods and other information. One-way ANOVA tests showed no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the reporting of criteria across different journals and there was also no significant difference between the articles published in 2011 and 2012 (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The general quality of reporting of RCTs in paediatric dentistry journals was inadequate. Authors, reviewers and journal guidelines must work together towards a common goal for improving the quality of reporting of RCTs. © 2014, European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry.

引用

页码：181 / 189

页数：8

共 26 条

[1]

Al-Namankany A.A., Ashley P., Moles D.R., Parekh S., Assessment of the quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in paediatric dentistry journals, Int J Paediatr Dent, 19, pp. 318-324, (2009)

[2]

Altman D.G., Moher D., Schulz K.F., Improving the reporting of randomised trials: the CONSORT Statement and beyond, Stat Med, 31, pp. 2985-2997, (2012)

[3]

Begg C., Cho M., Eastwood S., Et al., Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement, JAMA, 276, pp. 637-639, (1996)

[4]

Cairo F., Sanz I., Matesanz P., Nieri M., Pagliaro U., Quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in implant dentistry. A systematic review on critical aspects in design, outcome assessment and clinical relevance, J Clin Periodontol, 39, pp. 81-107, (2012)

[5]

Chalmers I., Underreporting research is scientific misconduct, JAMA, 263, pp. 1405-1408, (1990)

[6]

Chalmers I., Underreporting Research Is Scientific Misconduct, JAMA, 263, pp. 1405-1408, (1990)

[7]

Concato J., Shah N., Horwitz R.I., Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs, N Engl J Med, 342, pp. 1887-1892, (2000)

[8]

Deangelis C.D., Drazen J.M., Frizelle F.A., Et al., Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 131, pp. 479-480, (2005)

[9]

Faggion J.R., Clovis M., Giannakopoulos N.N., Quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in leading journals of periodontology and implant dentistry: a survey, J Periodontol, 83, pp. 1251-1256, (2012)

[10]

Fleiss J.L., Statistical methods for rates and proportions, (1981)

← 1 2 3 →