CONSORT statement를 기반으로 한 국내 Science Citation Index 저널과 NEJM의 Randomized Controlled Trial의 abstracts 질적 비교 평가 연구
The quality of Reports on Randomized Controlled Trials abstracts from Korean Science Citation Index journal and NEJM; Evaluation and Comparison of adherence to the CONSORT Statement
1
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Objective: This study evaluated and compared the adherence to the CONSORT for quality of reports on the randomized controlled trials (RCT) abstracts by four major Korean Science Citation Index (SCI) journals and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Methods: A descriptive analysis of published RCT abstracts in Korean SCI journals and NEJM from 2007/01 to 2011/06 was conducted by two reviewers, independently extracting data from a PubMed search. A modification of CONSORT for abstract was used including 16 checklist items. Reporting of checklist items for individual group was conducted to compare adherence patterns between two groups. Results: We identified the potential 57 RCT abstracts from Korean SCI and 50 from NEJM meeting our inclusion criteria; among them,three abstracts from Korean SCI and one from NEJM were excluded. Among total 16 checklist items based on CONSORT statement, Korean SCI journals and NEJM were statistically equivalent in 4 items; Korean journals were better in three items and NEJM were in nine. The methodological quality domains were inadequately reported in both journals:allocation concealment about 1.9% and 4.0%, and blinding 44.4% and 40.8%. In general, The CONSORT adherence of NEJM was better than that of Korean SCI in the method and result domain (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The quality of NEJM reporting of RCT abstracts was better than that of Korean SCI, in general. This study on adherence of RCT reports from Korean SCI journals and NEJM abstracts to the CONSORT statement reveals that there is a need for improvement, especially Korean SCI. Further investigation on the quality of RCT reports and ways to improve reporting quality is required.
Abstract
Objective: This study evaluated and compared the adherence to the CONSORT for quality of reports on the randomized controlled trials (RCT) abstracts by four major Korean Science Citation Index (SCI) journals and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Methods: A descriptive analysis of published RCT abstracts in Korean SCI journals and NEJM from 2007/01 to 2011/06 was conducted by two reviewers, independently extracting data from a PubMed search. A modification of CONSORT for abstract was used including 16 checklist items. Reporting of checklist items for individual group was conducted to compare adherence patterns between two groups. Results: We identified the potential 57 RCT abstracts from Korean SCI and 50 from NEJM meeting our inclusion criteria; among them,three abstracts from Korean SCI and one from NEJM were excluded. Among total 16 checklist items based on CONSORT statement, Korean SCI journals and NEJM were statistically equivalent in 4 items; Korean journals were better in three items and NEJM were in nine. The methodological quality domains were inadequately reported in both journals:allocation concealment about 1.9% and 4.0%, and blinding 44.4% and 40.8%. In general, The CONSORT adherence of NEJM was better than that of Korean SCI in the method and result domain (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The quality of NEJM reporting of RCT abstracts was better than that of Korean SCI, in general. This study on adherence of RCT reports from Korean SCI journals and NEJM abstracts to the CONSORT statement reveals that there is a need for improvement, especially Korean SCI. Further investigation on the quality of RCT reports and ways to improve reporting quality is required.
참고문헌 (22)
- 안형식, "Evidence-based Medicine의 개념과 발전방안", 대한의사협회지, 43(12), pp.1156~1164 (2000)
- 한림의대 가정의학교실, "근거중심의학의 이론과 실제", pp.35~45 (2001), 서울의학출판사
- The PLoS Medicine Editors, "The Impact of Open Access upon Public Health", PLoS Med, 3(5), pp.e252~ (2006)
- Begg C, "Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement", JAMA: the journal of the America, 276(8), pp.637~639 (1996)
- Moher D, "CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials", Journal of clinical epidemiology, 63, pp.e1~e37 (2010)
- Begg C, "Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement", JAMA, 276, pp.637~639 (1996)
- Moher D, "The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel- group randomized trials", JAMA, 285, pp.1987~1991 (2001)
- "CONSORT Web site"[URL]
- Sackett DL, "Evidence-Based Medicine: what it is and what it isn't", BMJ, 312, pp.71~72 (1996)
- Lionel NDW, "Assessing reports of therapeutic trials", Br Med J, 3, pp.637~640 (1970)
- Hopewell, "Reporting of trials presented in conference abstracts needs to be improved", Jour of Clin Epidemiol, 59(7), pp.681~684 (2006)
- Berwanger, "The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: Survey of major general medical journals", Jourl of Clin Epidemiol, 62(4), pp.387~392 (2009)
- "NEJM"[URL]
- Zhang D, "An assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials conducted in China", Trials, 9, pp.22~ (2008)
- Kae Uetani, "Quality of reports on randomized controlled trials conducted in Japan Evaluation of adherence to the CONSORT statement", Internal medicine, 48(5), pp.307~313 (2009)
- Hopewell, "CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration", PLoS Medicine, 5(1), pp.e20~ (2008)
- Berwanger O, "The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: survey of major general medical journals", Journal of clinical epidemiology, 62, pp.387~392 (2009)
- HS Kim, "The Quality of Reporting Randomized Controlled Trial abstracts: Survey of Korean Science Citation Index Journals and New England Journal of Medicine", J Pharm Sci, 27, pp.62~73 (2012)