한의학 관련 무작위배정비교임상연구의 비뚤림 위험 평가
The Assessment of Risk of Bias on Randomised Controlled Trials of Oriental Medicine in Korea
1
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Objectives: To examine the current status of clinical research in oriental medicine, and to assess ‘risk of bias’(ROB) of randomized clinical trials(RCTs) in oriental medicine in Korea. Methods: Special committee for EBM, KOMS(Korean Oriental Medicine Society) reviewed 17 journals related to oriental medicine in Korea (from the first issue to May 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2010), and PubMed (1966 to May 2010). Then we selected eligible RCTs in terms of oriental medicine, and assessed ‘risk of bias’. Results: We reviewed 12,653 articles from the 17 journals, and 41 articles from CENTRAL and PubMed. After non-clinical articles were excluded, 1,004 articles were left. Among them, the number of eligible studies in terms of oriental medicine was 306. In these eligible studies, 130 were RCTs. Of RCTs, 69 were on acupuncture, 25 on herbal medicine. The proportion of ‘unclear’ is high in the criteria of ‘Allocation concealment’, ‘Blinding of participants and personnel’, ‘Blinding of outcome assessment’ and ‘Other bias’. On the other hand, ‘low’ has high in the criteria of ‘Incomplete outcome data’ and ‘Selective reporting’. Conclusions: Risk of bias on oriental medicine is unclear in terms of ‘allocation concealment’ and ‘blinding’. For high-quality research in oriental medicine, further research should be needed on randomization and blinding in the RCTs.
Abstract
Objectives: To examine the current status of clinical research in oriental medicine, and to assess ‘risk of bias’(ROB) of randomized clinical trials(RCTs) in oriental medicine in Korea. Methods: Special committee for EBM, KOMS(Korean Oriental Medicine Society) reviewed 17 journals related to oriental medicine in Korea (from the first issue to May 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2010), and PubMed (1966 to May 2010). Then we selected eligible RCTs in terms of oriental medicine, and assessed ‘risk of bias’. Results: We reviewed 12,653 articles from the 17 journals, and 41 articles from CENTRAL and PubMed. After non-clinical articles were excluded, 1,004 articles were left. Among them, the number of eligible studies in terms of oriental medicine was 306. In these eligible studies, 130 were RCTs. Of RCTs, 69 were on acupuncture, 25 on herbal medicine. The proportion of ‘unclear’ is high in the criteria of ‘Allocation concealment’, ‘Blinding of participants and personnel’, ‘Blinding of outcome assessment’ and ‘Other bias’. On the other hand, ‘low’ has high in the criteria of ‘Incomplete outcome data’ and ‘Selective reporting’. Conclusions: Risk of bias on oriental medicine is unclear in terms of ‘allocation concealment’ and ‘blinding’. For high-quality research in oriental medicine, further research should be needed on randomization and blinding in the RCTs.
참고문헌 (12)
- Sackett DL, "Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't", Bmj, 312(7023), pp.71~72 (1996)
- 정우빈, "대한가정의학회지에 실린 무작위대조시험논문의 질 평가", Korean Journal of Family Medicine, 30(8), pp.626~631 (2009), 대한가정의학회
- 김석원, "국내 학회지에 실린 무작위임상시험논문의 양적 분석 및 질 평가 - 5개 학회지를 대상으로", Korean Journal of Family Medicine, 25(2), pp.118~125 (2004), 대한가정의학회
- 최준용, "대한한의학회지 및 대한한의학회 산하 정회원 학회의 학술진흥재단 등재지에 대한 천식 임상연구의 체계적 고찰", 대한한의학회지, 31(1), pp.14~22 (2010), 대한한의학회
- 이규선, "대한한의학회지 및 대한한의학회 산하 정회원 학회의 학술진흥재단 등재지에 대한 비염 임상연구의 체계적 고찰", 대한한의학회지, 31(5), pp.1~11 (2010), 대한한의학회
- 박봉기, "무작위 배정 비교 임상 시험을 통한 국내의 약침 연구에 대한 체계적 고찰", 대한한의학회지, 30(5), pp.115~126 (2009), 대한한의학회
- Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence. Evidence Report, "Technology Assessment No. 47 (Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute--University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-97-0011)", West S, 2002, 02-E016
- NECA 체계적 문헌고찰 매뉴얼, "김수영", 한국보건의료연구원, 82~85 (2011)
- Moher D, "CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials", British Medical Journal, 340, pp.c869~ (2010)
- MacPherson H, "Standards for reporting interventions in controlled trials of acupuncture: the STRICTA recommendations", The Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine, 8(1), pp.85~89 (2002)
- Pildal J, "Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials", International Journal of Epidemiology, 36, pp.847~857 (2007)