• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

伊朗 Cochrane 综述纳入的随机试验偏倚风险。

Risk of Bias in Iranian Randomized Trials Included in Cochrane Reviews.

机构信息

Minimally Invasive Surgery Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Cochrane Iran Associate Centre, National Institute for Medical Research Development (NIMAD), Tehran, Iran.

出版信息

Arch Iran Med. 2022 Jun 1;25(6):375-382. doi: 10.34172/aim.2022.61.

DOI:10.34172/aim.2022.61
PMID:35943017
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11904274/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Among interventional studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence. However, RCTs can be susceptible to the risk of bias (RoB). Systematic reviews can be performed to appraise RoB in the included articles using evaluative tools. This study aimed to describe the main characteristics and focus on the RoB of RCTs conducted in Iran and included in Cochrane Reviews (CRs).

METHODS

We searched "Iran" by selecting the "Search All Text" and "Review" fields in the within Ovid. CRs that included the RCTs conducted in Iran were retrieved. A trial was selected only if it was included in CRs, described as a controlled clinical trial, involved human subjects and CR authors assessed its RoB. The trials were characterized by investigating the relevant articles and the table "Characteristics of included studies" in each CR. The RoB was investigated by collecting the review authors' judgments based on RoB assessment tables in the CRs.

RESULTS

Out of 1166 Iranian RCTs included by 571 CRs, low RoB was found in 44.9% for random sequence generation, 20.8% for allocation concealment, 32.3% for blinding of participants/personnel, 36.5% for blinding of outcome assessors, 56.3% for incomplete outcome data, 41.3% for selective outcome reporting and 53.8% for other sources of bias.

CONCLUSION

The RoB in Iranian RCTs was found to be mostly high or unclear. While this is similar to the global situation, it is recommended that the methodological quality of conducting and reporting RCTs be addressed in Iran.

摘要

背景

在介入性研究中,随机对照试验(RCT)提供了最高级别的证据。然而,RCT 可能容易受到偏倚风险(RoB)的影响。系统评价可以使用评估工具对纳入文章中的 RoB 进行评估。本研究旨在描述在伊朗进行并纳入 Cochrane 评价(CR)的 RCT 的主要特征,并重点关注其 RoB。

方法

我们通过在 Ovid 中的“Search All Text”和“Review”字段中选择“伊朗”进行搜索,检索到包含伊朗 RCT 的 CR。只有当试验被纳入 CR 中,被描述为对照临床试验,涉及人类受试者且 CR 作者评估其 RoB 时,才会选择该试验。通过调查相关文章和每个 CR 中的“纳入研究特征”表来描述试验。通过收集 CR 中 RoB 评估表中审查作者的判断来调查 RoB。

结果

在 571 项 CR 中纳入的 1166 项伊朗 RCT 中,随机序列生成的 RoB 为 44.9%,分配隐藏的 RoB 为 20.8%,参与者/人员盲法的 RoB 为 32.3%,结果评估者盲法的 RoB 为 36.5%,结局数据不完整的 RoB 为 56.3%,选择性结局报告的 RoB 为 41.3%,其他偏倚来源的 RoB 为 53.8%。

结论

伊朗 RCT 的 RoB 大多被认为是高或不明确的。虽然这与全球情况相似,但建议在伊朗解决 RCT 的实施和报告的方法学质量问题。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/51f2/11904274/d98d0728fba5/aim-25-375-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/51f2/11904274/077933a89e8a/aim-25-375-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/51f2/11904274/1696c1162097/aim-25-375-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/51f2/11904274/2604364c40bd/aim-25-375-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/51f2/11904274/3ad187629c5c/aim-25-375-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/51f2/11904274/d98d0728fba5/aim-25-375-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/51f2/11904274/077933a89e8a/aim-25-375-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/51f2/11904274/1696c1162097/aim-25-375-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/51f2/11904274/2604364c40bd/aim-25-375-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/51f2/11904274/3ad187629c5c/aim-25-375-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/51f2/11904274/d98d0728fba5/aim-25-375-g005.jpg

相似文献

1
Risk of Bias in Iranian Randomized Trials Included in Cochrane Reviews.伊朗 Cochrane 综述纳入的随机试验偏倚风险。
Arch Iran Med. 2022 Jun 1;25(6):375-382. doi: 10.34172/aim.2022.61.
2
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
3
Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook.Cochrane 系统评价中随机序列生成的偏倚风险判断常常与 Cochrane 手册不一致。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Aug 5;19(1):170. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0804-y.
4
Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomized controlled trials in hypertension-related Cochrane reviews.高血压相关 Cochrane 综述中随机对照试验偏倚风险评估的分歧。
Trials. 2024 Jun 21;25(1):405. doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-08145-2.
5
Adequacy of risk of bias assessment in surgical vs non-surgical trials in Cochrane reviews: a methodological study.Cochrane 综述中手术与非手术试验的偏倚风险评估充分性:一项方法学研究。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Sep 29;20(1):240. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01123-7.
6
Risk of bias assessments and reporting quality of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials examining acupuncture for depression: An overview and meta-epidemiology study.系统评价和随机对照试验评估针刺治疗抑郁症的偏倚风险和报告质量:概述和荟萃流行病学研究。
J Evid Based Med. 2020 Feb;13(1):25-33. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12372.
7
Are Neonatal Trials Better Conducted and Reported over the Last 6 Decades? An Analysis on Their Risk-of-Bias Status in Cochrane Reviews.过去 60 年来,新生儿临床试验的实施和报告情况是否有所改善?对 Cochrane 综述中偏倚风险状况的分析。
Neonatology. 2019;116(2):123-131. doi: 10.1159/000497423. Epub 2019 May 20.
8
Inter-review agreement of risk-of-bias judgments varied in Cochrane reviews.Cochrane 综述中的偏倚风险评估的重复评价一致性存在差异。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Apr;120:25-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.016. Epub 2019 Dec 19.
9
The effect of the CONSORT statement on the amount of "unclear" Risk of Bias reporting in Cochrane Systematic Reviews.CONSORT声明对Cochrane系统评价中“不清楚”偏倚风险报告数量的影响。
PLoS One. 2020 Jul 10;15(7):e0235535. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235535. eCollection 2020.
10
The judgement of biases included in the category "other bias" in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey.Cochrane 系统评价干预措施中“其他偏倚”类别中偏倚的判断:系统调查。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Apr 11;19(1):77. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0718-8.

本文引用的文献

1
Quality Assessment of Studies Included in Cochrane Oral Health Systematic Reviews: A Meta-Research.纳入 Cochrane 口腔健康系统评价的研究质量评估:一项元研究。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jul 7;18(14):7284. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18147284.
2
The methodological quality of 176,620 randomized controlled trials published between 1966 and 2018 reveals a positive trend but also an urgent need for improvement.1966 年至 2018 年间发表的 176620 项随机对照试验的方法学质量显示出一种积极的趋势,但也迫切需要改进。
PLoS Biol. 2021 Apr 19;19(4):e3001162. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001162. eCollection 2021 Apr.
3
COVID-19 Clinical trials: Quality matters more than quantity.
COVID-19 临床试验:质量比数量更重要。
Allergy. 2020 Oct;75(10):2542-2547. doi: 10.1111/all.14409. Epub 2020 Jun 19.
4
Systematic review on the quality of randomized controlled trials from Saudi Arabia.沙特阿拉伯随机对照试验质量的系统评价。
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2019 Aug 26;16:100441. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100441. eCollection 2019 Dec.
5
RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.《随机对照试验偏倚风险评估工具2:修订版》
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898.
6
Quality Assessment of Randomized Clinical Trials Reporting in Endodontic Journals: An Observational Study from 2012 to 2017.根管学期刊中随机临床试验报告的质量评估:2012 年至 2017 年的观察性研究。
J Endod. 2018 Aug;44(8):1246-1250. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2018.05.011.
7
Quality of surgical randomized controlled trials in hand surgery: a systematic review.手外科手术随机对照试验的质量:一项系统评价
J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2018 Oct;43(8):801-807. doi: 10.1177/1753193418780184. Epub 2018 Jun 13.
8
Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in patients with HIV on antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review.接受抗逆转录病毒治疗的HIV患者中随机对照试验的报告质量:一项系统评价。
Trials. 2017 Dec 28;18(1):625. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2360-2.
9
Interventions for Old World cutaneous leishmaniasis.旧世界皮肤利什曼病的干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 1;12(12):CD005067. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005067.pub5.
10
Avoidable waste related to inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions: a systematic review of randomized trials performed in Sub-Saharan Africa.与干预措施方法不当和报告不完整相关的可避免浪费:对撒哈拉以南非洲进行的随机试验的系统评价
Trials. 2017 Jul 5;18(1):291. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2034-0.