Cargando…
Assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials in surgery using Jadad score: Where do we stand?
INTRODUCTION: Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is important to prevent clinical application of erroneous results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an assessment of published RCTs in surgical subspecialties during 2011–2018 based on MEDLINE and EMBASE search. The primary objec...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9841541/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35417999 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpgm.JPGM_104_21 |
_version_ | 1784869868704628736 |
---|---|
author | Mohsina, S Gurushankari, B Niranjan, R Sureshkumar, S Sreenath, GS Kate, V |
author_facet | Mohsina, S Gurushankari, B Niranjan, R Sureshkumar, S Sreenath, GS Kate, V |
author_sort | Mohsina, S |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is important to prevent clinical application of erroneous results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an assessment of published RCTs in surgical subspecialties during 2011–2018 based on MEDLINE and EMBASE search. The primary objective of the present study was to quantitatively and qualitatively analyze the RCTs published from India based on year of publication, geographical distribution, and subspecialty using the modified Jadad score (high quality if score is ≥3; or ≥2 if blinded design was not feasible). Its secondary objective was to identify factors affecting the quality of RCTs. RESULTS: Among 1304 trials identified, 162 were analyzed. Of these 96 (59%) had a score of ≥3; and 104 (64.2%) were of high quality (score ≥2). Year-wise there was no significant quantitative (P = 0.329) or qualitative (P = 0.255) variation. Geographic regions had similar quantity (P = 0.206) and quality (P = 0.068). The RCTs among subspecialties too were comparable in quantity and quality. Higher impact factor of journal (P = 0.013) and assessment by Institute Review Board (IRB) (P = 0.004) were significantly associated with a better study quality. Type of institution, number of authors, centricity, assistance by a statistician, and source of funding did not affect the quality of RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: The quantity and quality of surgical RCTs were stable and comparable over the years and across geographical regions and subspecialties. Higher impact factor of journal and review by IRB were significantly associated with a better study quality. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9841541 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98415412023-01-17 Assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials in surgery using Jadad score: Where do we stand? Mohsina, S Gurushankari, B Niranjan, R Sureshkumar, S Sreenath, GS Kate, V J Postgrad Med Original Article INTRODUCTION: Quality assessment of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is important to prevent clinical application of erroneous results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an assessment of published RCTs in surgical subspecialties during 2011–2018 based on MEDLINE and EMBASE search. The primary objective of the present study was to quantitatively and qualitatively analyze the RCTs published from India based on year of publication, geographical distribution, and subspecialty using the modified Jadad score (high quality if score is ≥3; or ≥2 if blinded design was not feasible). Its secondary objective was to identify factors affecting the quality of RCTs. RESULTS: Among 1304 trials identified, 162 were analyzed. Of these 96 (59%) had a score of ≥3; and 104 (64.2%) were of high quality (score ≥2). Year-wise there was no significant quantitative (P = 0.329) or qualitative (P = 0.255) variation. Geographic regions had similar quantity (P = 0.206) and quality (P = 0.068). The RCTs among subspecialties too were comparable in quantity and quality. Higher impact factor of journal (P = 0.013) and assessment by Institute Review Board (IRB) (P = 0.004) were significantly associated with a better study quality. Type of institution, number of authors, centricity, assistance by a statistician, and source of funding did not affect the quality of RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: The quantity and quality of surgical RCTs were stable and comparable over the years and across geographical regions and subspecialties. Higher impact factor of journal and review by IRB were significantly associated with a better study quality. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022 2022-04-13 /pmc/articles/PMC9841541/ /pubmed/35417999 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpgm.JPGM_104_21 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Journal of Postgraduate Medicine https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Mohsina, S Gurushankari, B Niranjan, R Sureshkumar, S Sreenath, GS Kate, V Assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials in surgery using Jadad score: Where do we stand? |
title | Assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials in surgery using Jadad score: Where do we stand? |
title_full | Assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials in surgery using Jadad score: Where do we stand? |
title_fullStr | Assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials in surgery using Jadad score: Where do we stand? |
title_full_unstemmed | Assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials in surgery using Jadad score: Where do we stand? |
title_short | Assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials in surgery using Jadad score: Where do we stand? |
title_sort | assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials in surgery using jadad score: where do we stand? |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9841541/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35417999 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpgm.JPGM_104_21 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mohsinas assessmentofthequalityofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsinsurgeryusingjadadscorewheredowestand AT gurushankarib assessmentofthequalityofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsinsurgeryusingjadadscorewheredowestand AT niranjanr assessmentofthequalityofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsinsurgeryusingjadadscorewheredowestand AT sureshkumars assessmentofthequalityofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsinsurgeryusingjadadscorewheredowestand AT sreenathgs assessmentofthequalityofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsinsurgeryusingjadadscorewheredowestand AT katev assessmentofthequalityofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsinsurgeryusingjadadscorewheredowestand |