癌症护理研究中随机对照试验报告质量。

Quality of reporting randomized controlled trials in cancer nursing research.

机构信息

Jia-Wen Guo, PhD, RN, is Assistant Professor; Katherine A. Sward, PhD, RN, is Assistant Professor; and Susan L. Beck, PhD, APRN, FAAN, AOCN, is Professor and Robert S. and Beth M. Carter Endowed Chair in Nursing, College of Nursing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Nancy Staggers, PhD, RN, FAAN, is Professor, School of Nursing, University of Maryland, Baltimore.

出版信息

Nurs Res. 2014 Jan-Feb;63(1):26-35. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000007.

DOI:10.1097/NNR.0000000000000007

PMID:24335911

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide high-level evidence for evidence-based practice (EBP). The quality of RCTs has a substantial influence on providing reliable knowledge for EBP. Little is known about the quality of RCT reporting in cancer nursing.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the quality of reporting in published cancer nursing RCTs from 1984 to 2010.

METHODS

A total of 227 RCTs in cancer nursing published in English-language journals and indexed in PubMed or Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were reviewed using the Jadad scale, key methodologic index (KMI), and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist to assess the quality of reporting methodological aspects of research and the overall quality of reporting RCTs.

RESULTS

Adherence to reporting metrics was relatively low, based on the Jadad score (M = 1.94 out of 5, SD = 1.01), KMI scores (M = 0.84 out of 3, SD = .87), and adherence to CONSORT checklist items (M =16.92 out of 37, SD = 4.03). Only 11 of 37 items in the CONSORT checklist were reported in 80% or more of the studies reviewed. The quality of reporting showed some improvement over time.

DISCUSSION

Adherence to reporting metrics for cancer nursing RCTs was suboptimal, and further efforts are needed to improve both methodology reporting and overall reporting. Journals are encouraged to adopt the CONSORT checklist to influence the quality of RCT reports.

摘要

背景

随机对照试验（RCT）的结果为循证实践（EBP）提供了高级别的证据。RCT 的质量对为 EBP 提供可靠的知识有很大的影响。关于癌症护理中 RCT 报告的质量知之甚少。

目的

本研究旨在评估 1984 年至 2010 年发表的癌症护理 RCT 的报告质量。

方法

共回顾了在英文期刊上发表并在 PubMed 或 Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature 中索引的 227 项癌症护理 RCT，使用 Jadad 量表、关键方法学指标（KMI）和 CONSORT 清单评估报告研究方法学方面和 RCT 总体报告质量的报告质量。

结果

基于 Jadad 评分（M = 5 分中的 1.94，SD = 1.01）、KMI 评分（M = 3 分中的 0.84，SD = 0.87）和对 CONSORT 清单项目的遵守情况（M = 37 分中的 16.92，SD = 4.03），报告指标的遵守情况相对较低。在审查的研究中，只有 37 项 CONSORT 清单中的 11 项报告了 80%或以上。报告质量随着时间的推移有所提高。