Methodological Reporting of Randomized Trials in Five Leading Chinese Nursing Journals
Chunhu Shi,
Jinhui Tian,
Dan Ren,
Hongli Wei,
Lihuan Zhang,
Quan Wang and
Kehu Yang
PLOS ONE, 2014, vol. 9, issue 11, 1-7
Abstract:
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.
Date: 2014
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:
Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113002 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 13002&type=printable (application/pdf)
Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0113002
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113002
Access Statistics for this article
More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().