Suppr超能文献

社会复杂性护理干预的随机对照试验:是否会产生偏差和不可靠性?

Randomized controlled trials of socially complex nursing interventions: creating bias and unreliability?

作者信息

Lindsay Bruce

机构信息

Nursing and Midwifery Research Unit, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

出版信息

J Adv Nurs. 2004 Jan;45(1):84-94. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02864.x.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The randomized controlled trial is viewed by many researchers as the 'gold standard' research design. It is used increasingly to evaluate the effectiveness of socially complex activities such as nursing interventions. This use is seen by many commentators as problematic, while others are concerned about the quality of many published trial reports. One area of concern is that of intervention bias: the impact that a sentient intervention, such as a nursing one, may have consciously or unconsciously on study outcomes. This paper reports on an analysis of intervention definitions and possible intervention bias in 47 reports of randomized controlled trials of nursing interventions published in 2000 or 2001.

AIMS

This study evaluates four characteristics of the included reports: intervention sample size, intervention definition, involvement of intervention nurses in other aspects of the trial, and the claimed generalizability of results.

METHODS

Reports of randomized controlled trials published in 2000 or 2001 were identified. Full-text versions of 47 papers were obtained and information about the four characteristics was extracted and analysed.

RESULTS

Problems relating to possible intervention bias were identified in each of the papers. Inadequate intervention definition was the commonest problem, leading to difficulties in calculating the 'intervention dose' and in replicating or generalizing from the studies.

DISCUSSION

None of the included studies met the requirements of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. Four types of intervention bias were identified, and their possible implications for the reporting of trials of nursing interventions are discussed. This was a small-scale study, limited by time and resources. Its results are suggestive of a major problem of intervention bias but larger-scale investigations are necessary to quantify its extent.

CONCLUSIONS

Intervention bias is potentially a problem in randomized controlled trials. Lack of detail about interventions in published papers could be corrected by stricter adherence to guidelines such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, but this will not correct the underlying problem of inadequate study design that appears to be widespread in randomized controlled trials of nursing interventions.

摘要

背景

许多研究人员将随机对照试验视为“金标准”研究设计。它越来越多地用于评估诸如护理干预等社会复杂活动的有效性。许多评论家认为这种用法存在问题,而其他人则关注许多已发表试验报告的质量。一个令人担忧的领域是干预偏倚:诸如护理干预等有感知的干预可能有意识或无意识地对研究结果产生的影响。本文报告了对2000年或2001年发表的47篇护理干预随机对照试验报告中的干预定义及可能的干预偏倚的分析。

目的

本研究评估纳入报告的四个特征:干预样本量、干预定义、干预护士在试验其他方面的参与情况以及结果所宣称的可推广性。

方法

识别2000年或2001年发表的随机对照试验报告。获取了47篇论文的全文版本,并提取和分析了有关这四个特征的信息。

结果

在每篇论文中都发现了与可能的干预偏倚相关的问题。干预定义不充分是最常见的问题,导致在计算“干预剂量”以及从研究中进行复制或推广时出现困难。

讨论

纳入的研究均未达到《试验报告统一标准》的要求。识别出了四种类型的干预偏倚,并讨论了它们对护理干预试验报告可能产生的影响。这是一项受时间和资源限制的小规模研究。其结果表明存在干预偏倚这一主要问题,但需要进行更大规模的调查来量化其程度。

结论

干预偏倚在随机对照试验中可能是一个问题。通过更严格地遵循诸如《试验报告统一标准》等指南,可以纠正已发表论文中干预细节不足的问题,但这无法纠正护理干预随机对照试验中似乎普遍存在的研究设计不充分这一根本问题。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验