Volume 30, Issue 109 (December 2017)                   IJN 2017, 30(109): 1-9 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Adib-Hajbaghery M, Adib M, Eshraghi Arani N. Evaluating the Quality of Randomized Trials Published in Persian Nursing Journals with More than 10 Years of Publishing Using the CASP Checklist. IJN. 2017; 30 (109) :1-9
URL: http://ijn.iums.ac.ir/article-1-2529-en.html

Professor, Trauma Nursing Research Center, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran. (Corresponding Author) Tel: +98 31 5550021 Email: adib1344@yahoo.com
Abstract:   (204 Views)
 
Abstract
Background & Aim: The quality of Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) reports can significantly affect trust towards the results. However, the quality of RCTs published in Persian nursing journals has rarely been evaluated. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of RCTs published in Persian nursing journals.  
Materials & Methods: This is a descriptive cross-sectional study. The sample included 62 RCTs published from March 2015 to June 2016 in eight Persian nursing journals with at least 10 years of publishing history. A checklist, designed based on the CASP scale, was used to gather data. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data.
Results: Out of 62 RCT papers, only three fully met the criteria. Only half of the papers used a formula to calculate the sample size. 48.39% of the papers did not report the type of randomization method and 74.20% did not explain how to allocate the participants to study groups. In 51.61% of the RCTs, the study groups were so different, which might have affected the results. In 53.33% of the articles, there was no report about blinding of the study. Although 98.39% of the papers reported the P value of the tests, only 4.84% of them reported the confidence interval.
Conclusion: Most of the RCTs had deficiencies in reporting methodology and results. Deficiency in reporting the sample size calculation, randomization and allocation method, blinding method, and the confidence interval, were the most common problems in the RCTs.
Full-Text [PDF 722 kb]   (82 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: nursing
Received: 2017/09/3 | Accepted: 2017/12/2 | Published: 2017/12/2

References
1. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134(8):663-94. [DOI:10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012]
2. Ghojazadeh M, Tavananezhad N, Karkhanee M, Naghavi Behzad M, Azami Aghdash S. [Quality of Randomized Clinical Trial Reports Published by Iranian Researchers in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Level 1 Journals: Using CONSORT]. The Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility. 2013;16(78):7-15. Persian
3. He J, Du L, Liu G, Fu J, He X, Yu J, et al. Quality assessment of reporting of randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding in traditional Chinese medicine RCTs: a review of 3159 RCTs identified from 260 systematic reviews. Trials. 2011;12(1):122. [DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-12-122]
4. Akobeng AK. Principles of evidence based medicine. Arch Dis Child. 2005;90(8):837-40. [DOI:10.1136/adc.2005.071761]
5. Higgs J. Clinical reasoning in the health professions: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2008. Falagas ME, Grigori T, Ioannidou E. A systematic review of trends in the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials in various research fields. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(3):227-31. e9. Amanollahi A, Shokraneh F, Mohammadhassanzadeh H, Ebrahimi KM, Banani G. [Quality assessment of randomized controlled clinical trials indexed in PubMed using Consort statement]. Health Inf Manage. 2012; 9(3): 415. Persian
6. Nouri S, Ghanei M. [Familiarity with Consolidated Standards in Reporting Trials (Consort)]. Iran J Surg. 2014; 22(2): 88-103. Persian Gohari MR, Salehi M, Vahabi N, Bazrafshan A. [Analysis of medical sciences articles structure quality during 2002-2008]. Journal of Payavard Salamat. 2012;6(1):79-88. Persian
7. Olivo SA, Macedo LG, Gadotti IC, Fuentes J, Stanton T, Magee DJ. Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2008;88(2):156-75. [DOI:10.2522/ptj.20070147]
8. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Group C. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Elsevier; 2001; 357(9263): 1191-4. [DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04337-3]
9. Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JS, Zhang C, Li S, Sun F, et al. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta‐analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med. 2015;8(1):2-10. [DOI:10.1111/jebm.12141]
10. Talachi H, Jamshidi Orak R, Ravaghi H, Amanollahi A. [Assessment of the quality of methodology reporting in the randomized trials]. Journal of Health Administration. 2012;15(48):81-92. Persian Moniri S, Jafari F. [The quality of papers of Iranian scholars in the field of medical sciences: an impact survey]. Faslnameh-Ketab. 2011;22(2):110-20. Persian Moradi MT, Asadi-Samani M, Mobasheri M. [Evaluating the quality of materials and methods for writings of final proposal in clinical trial studies in Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences based on Consort checklist]. Journal of Clinical Nursing and Midwifery. 2014;2(4):1-7. Persian Bahri N, Latifnejad Roudsari R. [A Critical Appraisal of Research Evidence on Iranian Women's Attitude towards Menopause]. The Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility. 2015;18(178):1-11. Persian Ariasepehr S, Ahmadzadeasl M. [Basic principles of research methodology in medical sciences]. Tehran: Nourdanesh. 2001:84-92. Persian. Mohammady M, Toghian Chaharsougi N, Abdoli S. [Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Iranian Nursing and Midwifery Journals in 2010]. Iranian Journal of Epidemiology. 2014;9(3):24-36. Persian
11. Campbell MJ, Julious SA, Altman DG. Estimating sample sizes for binary, ordered categorical, and continuous outcomes in two group comparisons. BMJ. 1995;311(7013):1145-8. [DOI:10.1136/bmj.311.7013.1145]
12. Suresh K. An overview of randomization techniques: an unbiased assessment of outcome in clinical research. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2011;4(1):8–11. [DOI:10.4103/0974-1208.82352]
13. Gagnier JJ, Boon H, Rochon P, Moher D, Barnes J, Bombardier C. Reporting randomized, controlled trials of herbal interventions: an elaborated CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(5):364-7. [DOI:10.7326/0003-4819-144-5-200603070-00013]
14. Bang H, Ni L, Davis CE. Assessment of blinding in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 2004;25(2):143-56. [DOI:10.1016/j.cct.2003.10.016]
15. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Jüni P, Altman DG, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2008;336(7644):601-5. [DOI:10.1136/bmj.39465.451748.AD]
16. Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010;8(1):18. [DOI:10.1186/1741-7015-8-18]
17. Valaei N, Kosaryan M, Nasiri E, Mossavi S. [Methodological evaluation of the papers published in the journal of Mazandaran university of medical sciences, number 1-47, summer 2005]. Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences. 2006;16(52):131-40. Persian

© 2015 All Rights Reserved | Iran Journal of Nursing

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb