Cargando…

Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials referenced in the 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care: a cross-sectional review

OBJECTIVES: To identify the risk of bias of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) referenced in the 2015 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiovascular care (ECC). DESIGN: A cross-sectional review. SETTING: All RCTs cited as refe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cho, Yongil, Kim, Changsun, Kang, Bossng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6502002/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31061016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023725
_version_ 1783416183394926592
author Cho, Yongil
Kim, Changsun
Kang, Bossng
author_facet Cho, Yongil
Kim, Changsun
Kang, Bossng
author_sort Cho, Yongil
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To identify the risk of bias of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) referenced in the 2015 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiovascular care (ECC). DESIGN: A cross-sectional review. SETTING: All RCTs cited as references in the 2015 AHA guidelines update for CPR and ECC were extracted. After excluding non-human trials, studies that analysed existing RCTs, and RCTs published in a letter format, two reviewers assessed the risk of bias among RCTs included in this study. OUTCOME MEASURES: The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias in six domains (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting) was used. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-three RCTs were selected for the analyses. Of these RCTs, 78.8% had a high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel, mostly (87.7%) non-drug trials. In drug trials, the proportion of trials with a low risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel was 73.0%. The proportion of RCTs with an unclear risk of bias were higher for random sequence generation (38.5%) and allocation concealment (34.1%) than in other domains. Unclear risk of bias proportions was 65.4% for random sequence generation and 57.7% for allocation concealment before the introduction of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) but decreased to 31.3% and 32.2% after the 2010 CONSORT update, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of RCTs with an unclear risk of bias was still high for random sequence generation and allocation concealment in the 2015 AHA guidelines for CPR and ECC. The risk of bias should be considered when interpreting and applying the CPR guidelines. Authors should plan and report their research using CONSORT guidelines and the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool to reduce the risk of bias.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6502002
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65020022019-05-21 Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials referenced in the 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care: a cross-sectional review Cho, Yongil Kim, Changsun Kang, Bossng BMJ Open Evidence Based Practice OBJECTIVES: To identify the risk of bias of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) referenced in the 2015 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiovascular care (ECC). DESIGN: A cross-sectional review. SETTING: All RCTs cited as references in the 2015 AHA guidelines update for CPR and ECC were extracted. After excluding non-human trials, studies that analysed existing RCTs, and RCTs published in a letter format, two reviewers assessed the risk of bias among RCTs included in this study. OUTCOME MEASURES: The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias in six domains (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting) was used. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-three RCTs were selected for the analyses. Of these RCTs, 78.8% had a high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel, mostly (87.7%) non-drug trials. In drug trials, the proportion of trials with a low risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel was 73.0%. The proportion of RCTs with an unclear risk of bias were higher for random sequence generation (38.5%) and allocation concealment (34.1%) than in other domains. Unclear risk of bias proportions was 65.4% for random sequence generation and 57.7% for allocation concealment before the introduction of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) but decreased to 31.3% and 32.2% after the 2010 CONSORT update, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of RCTs with an unclear risk of bias was still high for random sequence generation and allocation concealment in the 2015 AHA guidelines for CPR and ECC. The risk of bias should be considered when interpreting and applying the CPR guidelines. Authors should plan and report their research using CONSORT guidelines and the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool to reduce the risk of bias. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-05-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6502002/ /pubmed/31061016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023725 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Evidence Based Practice
Cho, Yongil
Kim, Changsun
Kang, Bossng
Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials referenced in the 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care: a cross-sectional review
title Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials referenced in the 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care: a cross-sectional review
title_full Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials referenced in the 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care: a cross-sectional review
title_fullStr Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials referenced in the 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care: a cross-sectional review
title_full_unstemmed Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials referenced in the 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care: a cross-sectional review
title_short Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials referenced in the 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care: a cross-sectional review
title_sort risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials referenced in the 2015 american heart association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care: a cross-sectional review
topic Evidence Based Practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6502002/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31061016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023725
work_keys_str_mv AT choyongil riskofbiasassessmentofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsreferencedinthe2015americanheartassociationguidelinesupdateforcardiopulmonaryresuscitationandemergencycardiovascularcareacrosssectionalreview
AT kimchangsun riskofbiasassessmentofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsreferencedinthe2015americanheartassociationguidelinesupdateforcardiopulmonaryresuscitationandemergencycardiovascularcareacrosssectionalreview
AT kangbossng riskofbiasassessmentofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsreferencedinthe2015americanheartassociationguidelinesupdateforcardiopulmonaryresuscitationandemergencycardiovascularcareacrosssectionalreview