Cargando…

Methodological Reporting of Randomized Trials in Five Leading Chinese Nursing Journals

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not always well reported, especially in terms of their methodological descriptions. This study aimed to investigate the adherence of methodological reporting complying with CONSORT and explore associated trial level variables in the Chinese nursing...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shi, Chunhu, Tian, Jinhui, Ren, Dan, Wei, Hongli, Zhang, Lihuan, Wang, Quan, Yang, Kehu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240555/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25415382
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113002
_version_ 1782345730710568960
author Shi, Chunhu
Tian, Jinhui
Ren, Dan
Wei, Hongli
Zhang, Lihuan
Wang, Quan
Yang, Kehu
author_facet Shi, Chunhu
Tian, Jinhui
Ren, Dan
Wei, Hongli
Zhang, Lihuan
Wang, Quan
Yang, Kehu
author_sort Shi, Chunhu
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not always well reported, especially in terms of their methodological descriptions. This study aimed to investigate the adherence of methodological reporting complying with CONSORT and explore associated trial level variables in the Chinese nursing care field. METHODS: In June 2012, we identified RCTs published in five leading Chinese nursing journals and included trials with details of randomized methods. The quality of methodological reporting was measured through the methods section of the CONSORT checklist and the overall CONSORT methodological items score was calculated and expressed as a percentage. Meanwhile, we hypothesized that some general and methodological characteristics were associated with reporting quality and conducted a regression with these data to explore the correlation. The descriptive and regression statistics were calculated via SPSS 13.0. RESULTS: In total, 680 RCTs were included. The overall CONSORT methodological items score was 6.34±0.97 (Mean ± SD). No RCT reported descriptions and changes in “trial design,” changes in “outcomes” and “implementation,” or descriptions of the similarity of interventions for “blinding.” Poor reporting was found in detailing the “settings of participants” (13.1%), “type of randomization sequence generation” (1.8%), calculation methods of “sample size” (0.4%), explanation of any interim analyses and stopping guidelines for “sample size” (0.3%), “allocation concealment mechanism” (0.3%), additional analyses in “statistical methods” (2.1%), and targeted subjects and methods of “blinding” (5.9%). More than 50% of trials described randomization sequence generation, the eligibility criteria of “participants,” “interventions,” and definitions of the “outcomes” and “statistical methods.” The regression analysis found that publication year and ITT analysis were weakly associated with CONSORT score. CONCLUSIONS: The completeness of methodological reporting of RCTs in the Chinese nursing care field is poor, especially with regard to the reporting of trial design, changes in outcomes, sample size calculation, allocation concealment, blinding, and statistical methods.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4240555
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42405552014-11-26 Methodological Reporting of Randomized Trials in Five Leading Chinese Nursing Journals Shi, Chunhu Tian, Jinhui Ren, Dan Wei, Hongli Zhang, Lihuan Wang, Quan Yang, Kehu PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not always well reported, especially in terms of their methodological descriptions. This study aimed to investigate the adherence of methodological reporting complying with CONSORT and explore associated trial level variables in the Chinese nursing care field. METHODS: In June 2012, we identified RCTs published in five leading Chinese nursing journals and included trials with details of randomized methods. The quality of methodological reporting was measured through the methods section of the CONSORT checklist and the overall CONSORT methodological items score was calculated and expressed as a percentage. Meanwhile, we hypothesized that some general and methodological characteristics were associated with reporting quality and conducted a regression with these data to explore the correlation. The descriptive and regression statistics were calculated via SPSS 13.0. RESULTS: In total, 680 RCTs were included. The overall CONSORT methodological items score was 6.34±0.97 (Mean ± SD). No RCT reported descriptions and changes in “trial design,” changes in “outcomes” and “implementation,” or descriptions of the similarity of interventions for “blinding.” Poor reporting was found in detailing the “settings of participants” (13.1%), “type of randomization sequence generation” (1.8%), calculation methods of “sample size” (0.4%), explanation of any interim analyses and stopping guidelines for “sample size” (0.3%), “allocation concealment mechanism” (0.3%), additional analyses in “statistical methods” (2.1%), and targeted subjects and methods of “blinding” (5.9%). More than 50% of trials described randomization sequence generation, the eligibility criteria of “participants,” “interventions,” and definitions of the “outcomes” and “statistical methods.” The regression analysis found that publication year and ITT analysis were weakly associated with CONSORT score. CONCLUSIONS: The completeness of methodological reporting of RCTs in the Chinese nursing care field is poor, especially with regard to the reporting of trial design, changes in outcomes, sample size calculation, allocation concealment, blinding, and statistical methods. Public Library of Science 2014-11-21 /pmc/articles/PMC4240555/ /pubmed/25415382 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113002 Text en © 2014 Shi et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Shi, Chunhu
Tian, Jinhui
Ren, Dan
Wei, Hongli
Zhang, Lihuan
Wang, Quan
Yang, Kehu
Methodological Reporting of Randomized Trials in Five Leading Chinese Nursing Journals
title Methodological Reporting of Randomized Trials in Five Leading Chinese Nursing Journals
title_full Methodological Reporting of Randomized Trials in Five Leading Chinese Nursing Journals
title_fullStr Methodological Reporting of Randomized Trials in Five Leading Chinese Nursing Journals
title_full_unstemmed Methodological Reporting of Randomized Trials in Five Leading Chinese Nursing Journals
title_short Methodological Reporting of Randomized Trials in Five Leading Chinese Nursing Journals
title_sort methodological reporting of randomized trials in five leading chinese nursing journals
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240555/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25415382
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113002
work_keys_str_mv AT shichunhu methodologicalreportingofrandomizedtrialsinfiveleadingchinesenursingjournals
AT tianjinhui methodologicalreportingofrandomizedtrialsinfiveleadingchinesenursingjournals
AT rendan methodologicalreportingofrandomizedtrialsinfiveleadingchinesenursingjournals
AT weihongli methodologicalreportingofrandomizedtrialsinfiveleadingchinesenursingjournals
AT zhanglihuan methodologicalreportingofrandomizedtrialsinfiveleadingchinesenursingjournals
AT wangquan methodologicalreportingofrandomizedtrialsinfiveleadingchinesenursingjournals
AT yangkehu methodologicalreportingofrandomizedtrialsinfiveleadingchinesenursingjournals