• 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

相似文献

1
Checklist to assess Trustworthiness in RAndomised Controlled Trials (TRACT checklist): concept proposal and pilot.评估随机对照试验可信度的清单(TRACT清单):概念提案与试点。
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2023 Jun 20;8(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s41073-023-00130-8.
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
Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals.试验报告的统一标准(CONSORT)以及医学期刊上发表的随机对照试验(RCT)的报告完整性。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Nov 14;11(11):MR000030. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000030.pub2.
4
Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials of Periodontal Diseases in Journal Abstracts-A Cross-sectional Survey and Bibliometric Analysis.期刊摘要中牙周病随机对照试验的报告质量:横断面调查和文献计量分析。
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.个体参与者数据完整性工具评估随机试验的完整性。
Res Synth Methods. 2024 Nov;15(6):917-939. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1738. Epub 2024 Aug 13.
6
Development of the individual participant data integrity tool for assessing the integrity of randomised trials using individual participant data.个体参与者数据完整性工具的开发,用于评估使用个体参与者数据的随机试验的完整性。
Res Synth Methods. 2024 Nov;15(6):940-949. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1739. Epub 2024 Aug 18.
7
The Effectiveness of Integrated Care Pathways for Adults and Children in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.综合护理路径在医疗环境中对成人和儿童的有效性:一项系统评价。
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009;7(3):80-129. doi: 10.11124/01938924-200907030-00001.
8
CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials.CONSORT 2010声明:随机对照试验和可行性试验的扩展
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016 Oct 21;2:64. doi: 10.1186/s40814-016-0105-8. eCollection 2016.
9
A survey of experts to identify methods to detect problematic studies: stage 1 of the INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews project.一项识别有问题研究检测方法的专家调查:系统评价中调查有问题临床试验项目的第1阶段
J Clin Epidemiol. 2024 Nov;175:111512. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111512. Epub 2024 Aug 31.
10
Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement.医疗干预措施系统评价概述报告规范:PRIOR 声明的制定。
BMJ. 2022 Aug 9;378:e070849. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-070849.

引用本文的文献

1
Interventions in addition to broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotic therapy for the treatment of radiologically proven tubo-ovarian abscess.除广谱静脉抗生素治疗外,用于治疗经影像学证实的输卵管卵巢脓肿的干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Aug 11;8(8):CD016056. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD016056.
2
Time-lapse imaging systems for embryo incubation and assessment to improve reproductive outcomes in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation: study protocol for an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.用于胚胎培养和评估以改善体外受精女性生殖结局的延时成像系统:一项随机对照试验个体参与者数据荟萃分析的研究方案
BMJ Open. 2025 Jul 28;15(7):e101761. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-101761.
3
Data-sharing and trustworthiness of trials evaluating cervical ripening in induction of labour: a meta-epidemiological study of randomised controlled trials.引产中评估宫颈成熟度的试验的数据共享与可信度:一项随机对照试验的Meta流行病学研究
EClinicalMedicine. 2025 Jul 8;85:103346. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103346. eCollection 2025 Jul.
4
Can I trust this paper?我能信任这篇论文吗?
Psychon Bull Rev. 2025 Jul 16. doi: 10.3758/s13423-025-02740-3.
5
Endometrial receptivity testing for assisted reproductive technologies.辅助生殖技术中的子宫内膜容受性检测
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.已发表临床试验的可信度评估:领域与问题的文献综述
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2024 Aug 20;2(8):e12099. doi: 10.1002/cesm.12099. eCollection 2024 Aug.
7
Misoprostol Versus Oxytocin for the Prevention of Postpartum Haemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Including Individual Participant Data.米索前列醇与缩宫素预防产后出血的系统评价和Meta分析:纳入个体参与者数据
BJOG. 2025 Sep;132(10):1364-1377. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.18197. Epub 2025 May 13.
8
Investigation of trial registration as part of a research integrity assessment of randomised controlled trials in COVID-19 evidence syntheses: a meta-epidemiological study.在新冠病毒病证据综合分析中,将试验注册调查作为随机对照试验研究诚信评估的一部分:一项元流行病学研究。
BMJ Open. 2025 May 11;15(5):e092243. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-092243.
9
Investigating the impact of trial retractions on the healthcare evidence ecosystem (VITALITY Study I): retrospective cohort study.调查试验撤稿对医疗证据生态系统的影响(活力研究I):回顾性队列研究
BMJ. 2025 Apr 23;389:e082068. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2024-082068.
10
Treatment options for women with heavy menstrual bleeding: a protocol for comprehensive systematic review, network meta-analyses and health economic assessment.月经过多女性的治疗选择:一项全面系统评价、网状荟萃分析和卫生经济评估方案
BMJ Open. 2025 Apr 22;15(4):e085292. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-085292.

本文引用的文献

1
Breaking the stigma of retraction.打破撤稿的污名。
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Dec;5(12):1591. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01266-7.
2
Assessing Research Misconduct in Randomized Controlled Trials.评估随机对照试验中的研究不端行为。
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.评估健康相关研究中科研不端行为的方法:范围综述。
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.对22项女性健康随机对照试验数据完整性的担忧。
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.对一篇因数据完整性存疑而被撤回论文的第一作者的其他七篇出版物进行调查。
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.成千上万的僵尸随机试验在我们中间流传。
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.被提交至《麻醉学》的虚假个体患者数据和僵尸随机对照试验。
Anaesthesia. 2021 Apr;76(4):472-479. doi: 10.1111/anae.15263. Epub 2020 Oct 11.
8
To share or not to share data: how valid are trials evaluating first-line ovulation induction for polycystic ovary syndrome?数据共享与否:评估多囊卵巢综合征一线促排卵治疗的试验有多可靠?
Hum Reprod Update. 2020 Nov 1;26(6):929-941. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmaa031.
9
Integrity of randomized controlled trials: challenges and solutions.随机对照试验的完整性:挑战与解决方案。
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.35 项女性健康随机对照试验的数据完整性。
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020 Jun;249:72-83. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.04.016. Epub 2020 Apr 11.

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.

DOI:10.1186/s41073-023-00130-8
PMID:37337220
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10280869/
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。