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
  • [31] Bayesian Statistics in the design and analysis of cluster randomised controlled trials and their reporting quality: a methodological systematic review
    Jones, Benjamin Gary
    Streeter, Adam
    Baker, Amy
    Moyeed, Rana
    Creanor, Siobhan
    TRIALS, 2019, 20
  • [32] Quality of development and reporting of dietetic intervention studies in primary care: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
    Ball, L. E.
    Sladdin, I. K.
    Mitchell, L. J.
    Barnes, K. A.
    Ross, L. J.
    Williams, L. T.
    JOURNAL OF HUMAN NUTRITION AND DIETETICS, 2018, 31 (01) : 47 - 57
  • [33] Status, reporting completeness and methodological quality of pilot randomised controlled trials in acupuncture: protocol for a systematic review
    Zhang, Yajun
    Hu, Hantong
    Li, Xiaoyu
    Lou, Jiali
    He, Xiaofen
    Jiang, Yongliang
    Fang, Jianqiao
    BMJ OPEN, 2021, 11 (12):
  • [34] Bayesian statistics in the design and analysis of cluster randomised controlled trials and their reporting quality: a methodological systematic review
    Benjamin G. Jones
    Adam J. Streeter
    Amy Baker
    Rana Moyeed
    Siobhan Creanor
    Systematic Reviews, 10
  • [35] A systematic review of the quality of randomised controlled trials in periodontology.
    Montenegro, R
    Needleman, I
    Moles, D
    Tonetti, M
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 2002, 81 : A208 - A208
  • [36] Systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care
    Young, Amber E.
    Davies, Anna
    Bland, Sophie
    Brookes, Sara
    Blazeby, Jane M.
    BMJ OPEN, 2019, 9 (02):
  • [38] Outcome reporting in UK-based maternity trials: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
    Mahmud, A.
    Haywood, K.
    Kenyon, S.
    Khan, T.
    Mcarthur, C.
    Ismail, K.
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2016, 123 : 116 - 117
  • [39] Quality of life end behavioural outcomes in randomised clinical trials of antiepileptic drugs: A systematic review of methodology and reporting standards
    Baker, GA
    Hesdon, B
    Marson, AG
    EPILEPSIA, 1999, 40 : 73 - 74
  • [40] Non-Inferiority Trials: A Systematic Review on Methodological Quality and Reporting Standards
    Sengul, Anthony
    Escobar, Edison
    Flores, John R.
    Kwok, Michelle
    Kono, Shogo
    Guyatt, Gordon
    Jackevicius, Cynthia A.
    JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2024, 39 (13) : 2522 - 2530