Cargando…

Risk of bias and reporting completeness of randomised controlled trials in burn care: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION: Burn care represents a healthcare and economic burden to patients internationally. Choice of the most clinically effective treatment strategies requires evidence which is best obtained through high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCT). The number of published RCTs of burn care is...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Young, Amber, Reeves, Barnaby C, Cheng, Hung-Yuan, Wasiak, Jason, Muir, Duncan, Davies, Anna, Blazeby, Jane
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6937119/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31857316
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033472
_version_ 1783483828589821952
author Young, Amber
Reeves, Barnaby C
Cheng, Hung-Yuan
Wasiak, Jason
Muir, Duncan
Davies, Anna
Blazeby, Jane
author_facet Young, Amber
Reeves, Barnaby C
Cheng, Hung-Yuan
Wasiak, Jason
Muir, Duncan
Davies, Anna
Blazeby, Jane
author_sort Young, Amber
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Burn care represents a healthcare and economic burden to patients internationally. Choice of the most clinically effective treatment strategies requires evidence which is best obtained through high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCT). The number of published RCTs of burn care is increasing. However, trial quality and reporting standards are unclear. This study will assess the risk of bias and adequacy of reporting in recent burn care RCTs using tools endorsed by the Cochrane Collaboration. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic literature review will be undertaken, assessing parallel group RCTs evaluating therapeutic interventions for patients with cutaneous burns. Literature searches will use Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Separate searches for each database will include medical subject heading and free text terms including ‘burn’, ‘scald’, ‘thermal injury’ and ‘RCT’. Two reviewers will independently assess each study for inclusion. Risk of bias (RoB) will be assessed with the revised tool (RoB 2) and reporting completeness with the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 guidelines. We will report a narrative synthesis of all studies, including domain specific, and overall risk of bias for the primary outcome of each trial. Inter-rater agreement for RoB 2 will be reported using Fleiss’s Kappa. For adherence to the CONSORT guidelines, we will generate a completeness of reporting index for the five domains. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required because published documents will be used. Findings of the study will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018111020.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6937119
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69371192020-01-09 Risk of bias and reporting completeness of randomised controlled trials in burn care: protocol for a systematic review Young, Amber Reeves, Barnaby C Cheng, Hung-Yuan Wasiak, Jason Muir, Duncan Davies, Anna Blazeby, Jane BMJ Open Research Methods INTRODUCTION: Burn care represents a healthcare and economic burden to patients internationally. Choice of the most clinically effective treatment strategies requires evidence which is best obtained through high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCT). The number of published RCTs of burn care is increasing. However, trial quality and reporting standards are unclear. This study will assess the risk of bias and adequacy of reporting in recent burn care RCTs using tools endorsed by the Cochrane Collaboration. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic literature review will be undertaken, assessing parallel group RCTs evaluating therapeutic interventions for patients with cutaneous burns. Literature searches will use Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Separate searches for each database will include medical subject heading and free text terms including ‘burn’, ‘scald’, ‘thermal injury’ and ‘RCT’. Two reviewers will independently assess each study for inclusion. Risk of bias (RoB) will be assessed with the revised tool (RoB 2) and reporting completeness with the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 guidelines. We will report a narrative synthesis of all studies, including domain specific, and overall risk of bias for the primary outcome of each trial. Inter-rater agreement for RoB 2 will be reported using Fleiss’s Kappa. For adherence to the CONSORT guidelines, we will generate a completeness of reporting index for the five domains. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required because published documents will be used. Findings of the study will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018111020. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-12-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6937119/ /pubmed/31857316 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033472 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Research Methods
Young, Amber
Reeves, Barnaby C
Cheng, Hung-Yuan
Wasiak, Jason
Muir, Duncan
Davies, Anna
Blazeby, Jane
Risk of bias and reporting completeness of randomised controlled trials in burn care: protocol for a systematic review
title Risk of bias and reporting completeness of randomised controlled trials in burn care: protocol for a systematic review
title_full Risk of bias and reporting completeness of randomised controlled trials in burn care: protocol for a systematic review
title_fullStr Risk of bias and reporting completeness of randomised controlled trials in burn care: protocol for a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Risk of bias and reporting completeness of randomised controlled trials in burn care: protocol for a systematic review
title_short Risk of bias and reporting completeness of randomised controlled trials in burn care: protocol for a systematic review
title_sort risk of bias and reporting completeness of randomised controlled trials in burn care: protocol for a systematic review
topic Research Methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6937119/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31857316
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033472
work_keys_str_mv AT youngamber riskofbiasandreportingcompletenessofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinburncareprotocolforasystematicreview
AT reevesbarnabyc riskofbiasandreportingcompletenessofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinburncareprotocolforasystematicreview
AT chenghungyuan riskofbiasandreportingcompletenessofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinburncareprotocolforasystematicreview
AT wasiakjason riskofbiasandreportingcompletenessofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinburncareprotocolforasystematicreview
AT muirduncan riskofbiasandreportingcompletenessofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinburncareprotocolforasystematicreview
AT daviesanna riskofbiasandreportingcompletenessofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinburncareprotocolforasystematicreview
AT blazebyjane riskofbiasandreportingcompletenessofrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinburncareprotocolforasystematicreview