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
  • [11] Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of haematological malignancies according to international quality standards: a systematic review
    Chakraborty, Rajshekhar
    Cannella, Laura
    Cottone, Francesco
    Efficace, Fabio
    LANCET HAEMATOLOGY, 2020, 7 (12): : 892 - 901
  • [12] Reporting quality of surgical randomised controlled trials in head and neck cancer: a systematic review
    Netanya Aarabi Canagarajah
    George James Porter
    Kurchi Mitra
    Timothy Shun Man Chu
    European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 2021, 278 : 4125 - 4133
  • [13] The reporting quality of parallel randomised controlled trials in ophthalmic surgery in 2011: a systematic review
    A C Yao
    A Khajuria
    C F Camm
    E Edison
    R Agha
    Eye, 2014, 28 : 1341 - 1349
  • [14] Reporting quality of surgical randomised controlled trials in head and neck cancer: a systematic review
    Canagarajah, Netanya Aarabi
    Porter, George James
    Mitra, Kurchi
    Chu, Timothy Shun Man
    EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY, 2021, 278 (11) : 4125 - 4133
  • [15] The reporting quality of parallel randomised controlled trials in ophthalmic surgery in 2011: a systematic review
    Yao, A. C.
    Khajuria, A.
    Camm, C. F.
    Edison, E.
    Agha, R.
    EYE, 2014, 28 (11) : 1341 - 1349
  • [16] A systematic review of outcome reporting in achalasia randomised controlled trials
    Gray, R. T.
    Kennedy, R.
    Kennedy, J. A.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2016, 103 : 119 - 119
  • [17] The reporting standards of randomised controlled trials in leading medical journals between 2019 and 2020: a systematic review
    Mairead McErlean
    Jack Samways
    Peter J. Godolphin
    Yang Chen
    Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -), 2023, 192 : 73 - 80
  • [18] Reporting quality of randomised-controlled trials in robotic versus laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review
    Nandakumar, Madura
    Light, Alexander
    Burrows, Abigail
    Gupta, Tanya
    Daniel, Allen
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2020, 107 : 89 - 90
  • [19] Reporting Quality of Randomised-Controlled Trials in Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review
    Gupta, T.
    Light, A.
    Burrows, A.
    Daniel, A.
    Dadabhoy, M.
    Karthikeyan, S.
    Nandakumar, M.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2020, 107 : 165 - 165
  • [20] Modified intention to treat reporting in randomised controlled trials: systematic review
    Abraha, Iosief
    Montedori, Alessandro
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2010, 340 : 33