Suppr超能文献

评估随机对照试验可信度的清单(TRACT清单):概念提案与试点。

Checklist to assess Trustworthiness in RAndomised Controlled Trials (TRACT checklist): concept proposal and pilot.

作者信息

Mol Ben W, Lai Shimona, Rahim Ayesha, Bordewijk Esmée M, Wang Rui, van Eekelen Rik, Gurrin Lyle C, Thornton Jim G, van Wely Madelon, Li Wentao

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.

Aberdeen Centre for Women's Health Research, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.

出版信息

Res Integr Peer Rev. 2023 Jun 20;8(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s41073-023-00130-8.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To propose a checklist that can be used to assess trustworthiness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

DESIGN

A screening tool was developed using the four-stage approach proposed by Moher et al. This included defining the scope, reviewing the evidence base, suggesting a list of items from piloting, and holding a consensus meeting. The initial checklist was set-up by a core group who had been involved in the assessment of problematic RCTs for several years. We piloted this in a consensus panel of several stakeholders, including health professionals, reviewers, journal editors, policymakers, researchers, and evidence-synthesis specialists. Each member was asked to score three articles with the checklist and the results were then discussed in consensus meetings.

OUTCOME

The Trustworthiness in RAndomised Clinical Trials (TRACT) checklist includes 19 items organised into seven domains that are applicable to every RCT: 1) Governance, 2) Author Group, 3) Plausibility of Intervention Usage, 4) Timeframe, 5) Drop-out Rates, 6) Baseline Characteristics, and 7) Outcomes. Each item can be answered as either no concerns, some concerns/no information, or major concerns. If a study is assessed and found to have a majority of items rated at a major concern level, then editors, reviewers or evidence synthesizers should consider a more thorough investigation, including assessment of original individual participant data.

CONCLUSIONS

The TRACT checklist is the first checklist developed specifically to detect trustworthiness issues in RCTs. It might help editors, publishers and researchers to screen for such issues in submitted or published RCTs in a transparent and replicable manner.

摘要

目的

提出一份可用于评估随机对照试验(RCT)可信度的清单。

设计

采用Moher等人提出的四阶段方法开发了一种筛选工具。这包括界定范围、审查证据基础、通过试点提出一系列条目以及召开共识会议。初始清单由一个核心小组制定,该小组多年来一直参与对有问题的RCT进行评估。我们在一个由包括卫生专业人员、审稿人、期刊编辑、政策制定者、研究人员和证据综合专家在内的多个利益相关者组成的共识小组中进行了试点。要求每位成员使用该清单对三篇文章进行评分,然后在共识会议上讨论结果。

结果

随机临床试验可信度(TRACT)清单包括19个条目,分为七个领域,适用于每一项RCT:1)治理,2)作者团队,3)干预措施使用的合理性,4)时间框架,5)失访率,6)基线特征,以及7)结果。每个条目可以回答为无问题、有一些问题/无信息或有重大问题。如果一项研究经评估发现大多数条目被评为重大问题级别,那么编辑、审稿人或证据综合者应考虑进行更全面的调查,包括对原始个体参与者数据的评估。

结论

TRACT清单是专门为检测RCT中的可信度问题而制定的首个清单。它可能有助于编辑、出版商和研究人员以透明且可重复的方式在提交或已发表的RCT中筛选此类问题。

相似文献

4
Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials of Periodontal Diseases in Journal Abstracts-A Cross-sectional Survey and Bibliometric Analysis.
J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2018 Jun;18(2):130-141.e22. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2017.08.005. Epub 2017 Sep 21.
5
The Individual Participant Data Integrity Tool for assessing the integrity of randomised trials.
Res Synth Methods. 2024 Nov;15(6):917-939. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1738. Epub 2024 Aug 13.
7
8
CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials.
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016 Oct 21;2:64. doi: 10.1186/s40814-016-0105-8. eCollection 2016.

引用本文的文献

4
Can I trust this paper?
Psychon Bull Rev. 2025 Jul 16. doi: 10.3758/s13423-025-02740-3.
5
Endometrial receptivity testing for assisted reproductive technologies.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Jul 2;7(7):CD016209. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD016209.
6
Trustworthiness assessment of published clinical trials: Literature review of domains and questions.
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2024 Aug 20;2(8):e12099. doi: 10.1002/cesm.12099. eCollection 2024 Aug.

本文引用的文献

1
Breaking the stigma of retraction.
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Dec;5(12):1591. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01266-7.
2
Assessing Research Misconduct in Randomized Controlled Trials.
Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Sep 1;138(3):338-347. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004513.
3
Methods to assess research misconduct in health-related research: A scoping review.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Aug;136:189-202. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.012. Epub 2021 May 24.
4
Concerns about Data Integrity of 22 Randomized Controlled Trials in Women's Health.
Am J Perinatol. 2023 Feb;40(3):279-289. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1727280. Epub 2021 May 18.
5
An investigation of seven other publications by the first author of a retracted paper due to doubts about data integrity.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021 Jun;261:236-241. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.04.018. Epub 2021 Apr 18.
6
Hundreds of thousands of zombie randomised trials circulate among us.
Anaesthesia. 2021 Apr;76(4):444-447. doi: 10.1111/anae.15297. Epub 2020 Oct 30.
7
False individual patient data and zombie randomised controlled trials submitted to Anaesthesia.
Anaesthesia. 2021 Apr;76(4):472-479. doi: 10.1111/anae.15263. Epub 2020 Oct 11.
9
Integrity of randomized controlled trials: challenges and solutions.
Fertil Steril. 2020 Jun;113(6):1113-1119. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.04.018. Epub 2020 May 6.
10
Data integrity of 35 randomised controlled trials in women' health.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020 Jun;249:72-83. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.04.016. Epub 2020 Apr 11.

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