Methodological Reporting of Randomized Trials in Five Leading Chinese Nursing Journals

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0113002

CORC > 兰州大学 > 兰州大学 > 基础医学院 > 期刊论文

	Methodological Reporting of Randomized Trials in Five Leading Chinese Nursing Journals
	Shi, CH; Tian, JH; Ren, D; Wei, HL; Zhang, LH; Wang, Q; Yang, KH; Yang, KH (reprint author), Lanzhou Univ, Evidence Based Med Ctr, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China.
刊名	PLOS ONE
	2014-11-21
卷号	9 期号:11 页码:-
ISSN号	1932-6203
DOI	10.1371/journal.pone.0113002
文献子类	Article
英文摘要	Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not always well reported, especially in terms of their methodological descriptions. This study aimed to investigate the adherence of methodological reporting complying with CONSORT and explore associated trial level variables in the Chinese nursing care field. Methods: In June 2012, we identified RCTs published in five leading Chinese nursing journals and included trials with details of randomized methods. The quality of methodological reporting was measured through the methods section of the CONSORT checklist and the overall CONSORT methodological items score was calculated and expressed as a percentage. Meanwhile, we hypothesized that some general and methodological characteristics were associated with reporting quality and conducted a regression with these data to explore the correlation. The descriptive and regression statistics were calculated via SPSS 13.0. Results: In total, 680 RCTs were included. The overall CONSORT methodological items score was 6.34+/-0.97 (Mean +/- SD). No RCT reported descriptions and changes in "trial design,'' changes in "outcomes'' and "implementation,'' or descriptions of the similarity of interventions for "blinding.'' Poor reporting was found in detailing the "settings of participants'' (13.1%), "type of randomization sequence generation'' (1.8%), calculation methods of "sample size'' (0.4%), explanation of any interim analyses and stopping guidelines for "sample size'' (0.3%), "allocation concealment mechanism'' (0.3%), additional analyses in "statistical methods'' (2.1%), and targeted subjects and methods of "blinding'' (5.9%). More than 50% of trials described randomization sequence generation, the eligibility criteria of "participants,'' "interventions,'' and definitions of the "outcomes'' and "statistical methods.'' The regression analysis found that publication year and ITT analysis were weakly associated with CONSORT score. Conclusions: The completeness of methodological reporting of RCTs in the Chinese nursing care field is poor, especially with regard to the reporting of trial design, changes in outcomes, sample size calculation, allocation concealment, blinding, and statistical methods.
学科主题	Science & Technology - Other Topics
出版地	SAN FRANCISCO
语种	英语
WOS记录号	WOS:000346906600024
内容类型	期刊论文
源URL	[http://ir.lzu.edu.cn/handle/262010/121749]
专题	基础医学院_期刊论文
通讯作者	Yang, KH (reprint author), Lanzhou Univ, Evidence Based Med Ctr, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China.
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714	Shi, CH,Tian, JH,Ren, D,et al. Methodological Reporting of Randomized Trials in Five Leading Chinese Nursing Journals[J]. PLOS ONE,2014,9(11):-.
APA	Shi, CH.,Tian, JH.,Ren, D.,Wei, HL.,Zhang, LH.,...&Yang, KH .(2014).Methodological Reporting of Randomized Trials in Five Leading Chinese Nursing Journals.PLOS ONE,9(11),-.
MLA	Shi, CH,et al."Methodological Reporting of Randomized Trials in Five Leading Chinese Nursing Journals".PLOS ONE 9.11(2014):-.