Do randomised controlled trials relevant to pharmacy meet best practice standards for quality conduct and reporting? A systematic review

被引:21
|
作者
Ritchie, Alison [1 ]
Seubert, Liza [1 ]
Clifford, Rhonda [2 ]
Perry, Danae [1 ]
Bond, Christine [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Western Australia, Div Pharm, Perth, WA, Australia
[2] Univ Western Australia, Sch Allied Hlth, Perth, WA, Australia
[3] Univ Aberdeen, Inst Appl Hlth Sci, Polwarth Bldg, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, Scotland
关键词
other; pharmaceutical care; RCT; systematic review; CLINICAL-PHARMACIST; BLOOD-PRESSURE; PHARMACEUTICAL CARE; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; MEDICINES USE; OF-LIFE; INTERVENTION; MANAGEMENT; SERVICES; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1111/ijpp.12578
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
Objectives Evidence-based pharmacy practice requires a dependable evidence base. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard of high-quality primary research, and tools exist to assist researchers in conducting and reporting high-quality RCTs. This review aimed to explore whether RCTs relevant to pharmacy are conducted and reported in line with Cochrane risk of bias and CONSORT standards, respectively. Methods A MEDLINE search identified potential papers. After screening of titles, abstracts and full texts, the 50 most recent papers were reviewed and assessment of bias according to Cochrane domains and compliance with CONSORT checklist items was recorded. Each domain of the Cochrane tool and CONSORT checklist item and each article were given a percentage score, reported as median and interquartile range (IQR). Correlation between quality of conduct, quality of reporting, continent of origin, and journal impact factor was conducted using the R-2 statistic. The median domain score for risk of bias by paper according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool was 53.0% (IQR 38.5-68.5), while the median compliance score by paper for the CONSORT checklist was 64.0% (IQR 36.0-94.0%). key findings The median Cochrane domain and median CONSORT item completion scores, respectively, were 50.0% (IQR 33.3-66.7%) and 59.5% (IQR 52.0-70.3%). The highest risk of bias was associated with allocation concealment and blinding, and the least well-reported items were randomisation details, sequence generation and allocation concealment. A positive relationship between conduct and reporting of RCTs was found (R-2 = 0.75), while no correlation was found between quality of conduct or quality of reporting and journal impact factor, correlation coefficients (R-2 = 0.06 and R-2 = 0.05, respectively). This review identified that issues related to randomisation and blinding are often inadequately conducted or not comprehensively reported by researchers conducting pharmacy relevant RCTs, providing useful information for education and future research.
引用
收藏
页码:220 / 232
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] DO RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIALS RELEVANT TO PHARMACY MEET BEST PRACTICE STANDARDS FOR QUALITY OF CONDUCT AND QUALITY OF REPORTING? A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
    Seubert, Liza J.
    Ritchie, Alison
    Bond, Christine
    Clifford, Rhonda M.
    [J]. RESEARCH IN SOCIAL & ADMINISTRATIVE PHARMACY, 2018, 14 (08): : E36 - E36
  • [2] Comparing the reporting and conduct quality of exercise and pharmacological randomised controlled trials: a systematic review
    Adams, Scott C.
    McMillan, Julia
    Salline, Kirsten
    Lavery, Jessica
    Moskowitz, Chaya S.
    Matsoukas, Konstantina
    Chen, Maggie M. Z.
    Santa Mina, Daniel
    Scott, Jessica M.
    Jones, Lee W.
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2021, 11 (08):
  • [3] The quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: a systematic review
    Ntala, Chara
    Birmpili, Panagiota
    Worth, Allison
    Anderson, Niall H.
    Sheikh, Aziz
    [J]. PRIMARY CARE RESPIRATORY JOURNAL, 2013, 22 (04): : 417 - 424
  • [4] A systematic review of reporting standards of assisted vaginal birth randomised controlled trials
    Hotton, E.
    Renwick, S.
    Lenguerrand, E.
    Wade, J.
    Draycott, T.
    Crofts, J.
    Blencowe, N.
    [J]. BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2021, 128 : 98 - 98
  • [5] Protocol for a systematic review of reporting standards of anaesthetic interventions in randomised controlled trials
    Elliott, Lucy
    Coulman, Karen
    Blencowe, Natalie S.
    Qureshi, Mahim
    Watson, Sethina
    Mouton, Ronelle
    Hinchliffe, Robert J.
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2020, 10 (01):
  • [6] A systematic review of reporting quality for anaesthetic interventions in randomised controlled trials
    Elliott, L.
    Coulman, K.
    Blencowe, N. S.
    Qureshi, M., I
    Lee, K. S.
    Hinchliffe, R. J.
    Mouton, R.
    [J]. ANAESTHESIA, 2021, 76 (06) : 832 - 836
  • [7] The quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: systematic review protocol
    Ntala, Chara
    Birmpili, Panagiota
    Worth, Allison
    Anderson, Niall H.
    Sheikh, Aziz
    [J]. PRIMARY CARE RESPIRATORY JOURNAL, 2013, 22 (01): : PS1 - PS8
  • [8] Randomised controlled trials in plastic surgery: A systematic review of reporting quality
    Agha R.A.
    Camm C.F.
    Doganay E.
    Edison E.
    Siddiqui M.R.S.
    Orgill D.P.
    [J]. European Journal of Plastic Surgery, 2014, 37 (2) : 55 - 62
  • [9] Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic review
    Shahzad, Rida
    Ayub, Bushra
    Siddiqui, M. A. Rehman
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2022, 12 (09):
  • [10] Quality of reporting inflammatory bowel disease randomised controlled trials: a systematic review
    Gordon, Morris
    Khudr, Jamal
    Sinopoulou, Vassiliki
    Lakunina, Svetlana
    Rane, Aditi
    Akobeng, Anthony
    [J]. BMJ OPEN GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2024, 11 (01):