Suppr超能文献

病理性赌博和其他与赌博相关障碍的行为干预研究有多透明?系统文献回顾。

How transparent is behavioral intervention research on pathological gambling and other gambling-related disorders? A systematic literature review.

机构信息

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Gambling Studies Program, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.

出版信息

Addiction. 2012 Nov;107(11):1915-28. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03911.x. Epub 2012 Jun 15.

Abstract

AIMS

To review the transparency of reports of behavioral interventions for pathological gambling and other gambling-related disorders.

METHODS

We used the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND) Statement to develop the 59-question adapted TREND questionnaire (ATQ). Each ATQ question corresponds to a transparency guideline and asks how clearly a study reports its objectives, research design, analytical methods and conclusions. A subset of 23 ATQ questions is considered particularly important. We searched PubMed, PsychINFO and Web of Science to identify experimental evaluations published between 2000 and 2011 aiming to reduce problem gambling behaviors or decrease problems caused by gambling. Twenty-six English-language reports met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed by three abstractors using the ATQ.

RESULTS

The average report adhered to 38.4 (65.1%) of the 59 ATQ transparency guidelines. Each of the 59 ATQ questions received positive responses from an average of 16.9 (63.8%) of the reports. The subset of 23 particularly relevant questions received an average of 15.3 (66.5%) positive responses. Thirty-two of 59 (54%) ATQ questions were answered positively by 75% or more of the study reports, while 12 (20.3%) received positive responses by 25% or fewer. Publication year did not affect these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Gambling intervention reports need to improve their transparency by adhering to currently neglected and particularly relevant guidelines. Among them are recommendations for comparing study participants who are lost to follow-up and those who are retained, comparing study participants with the target population, describing methods used to minimize potential bias due to group assignment, and reporting adverse events or unintended effects.

摘要

目的

综述病理性赌博和其他与赌博相关障碍的行为干预措施报告的透明度。

方法

我们使用《非随机设计评估的透明报告(TREND)声明》制定了 59 个问题的改编 TREND 问卷(ATQ)。每个 ATQ 问题对应一个透明度指南,并询问研究报告如何清楚地报告其目标、研究设计、分析方法和结论。其中 23 个问题子集被认为特别重要。我们在 PubMed、PsychINFO 和 Web of Science 上搜索了 2000 年至 2011 年间发表的旨在减少问题赌博行为或减少赌博引起的问题的实验评估报告。26 份符合纳入标准的英文报告,由三名摘要者使用 ATQ 进行了审查。

结果

报告平均遵守了 59 个 ATQ 透明度指南中的 38.4 个(65.1%)。每个 ATQ 问题平均得到了 26 份报告中的 16.9 份(63.8%)的正面回答。特别相关的 23 个问题子集平均得到了 15.3 份(66.5%)的正面回答。59 个 ATQ 问题中有 32 个(54%)问题得到了 75%或更多报告的肯定回答,而 12 个(20.3%)问题得到了 25%或更少报告的肯定回答。发表年份并没有影响这些发现。

结论

赌博干预报告需要通过遵守目前被忽视的和特别相关的指南来提高透明度。其中包括建议比较失访和保留的研究参与者、比较研究参与者与目标人群、描述用于最小化因分组分配而产生潜在偏差的方法,以及报告不良事件或意外影响。

相似文献

2
Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials.从临床试验参与者中获取不良反应数据。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 16;1(1):MR000039. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000039.pub2.

本文引用的文献

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