Yi Yao MD, Nian Li PhD, Jieling Li MM, Jia Feng MM, Jingxin Ma MM, Xiaoyang Liao MM, Yonggang Zhang PhD
{"title":"护理随机对照试验中偏倚风险评估的可靠性：一项横断面研究。","authors":"Yi Yao MD, Nian Li PhD, Jieling Li MM, Jia Feng MM, Jingxin Ma MM, Xiaoyang Liao MM, Yonggang Zhang PhD","doi":"10.1111/ijn.13302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate the percentage and reasons for disagreements in the risk of bias (RoB) assessments for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in more than one Cochrane review in the field of nursing.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Disagreement in RoB assessments reduces the credibility of the evidence summarized by systematic reviews (SRs). There is no study that evaluates the reliability of RoB assessments in nursing studies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>Secondary data analysis based on research reports.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>RCTs included in more than one review in the nursing have been included. The disagreement of the assessment was analysed, and the possible reasons for disagreements were investigated.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Twenty-three RCTs were included in more than one review. The agreement of assessment ranged from 36.84% for “selective reporting” to 91.30% for “random sequence generation”. “Allocation concealment” showed the optimal agreement (84.21%). The items “blinding of participants and personnel”, “blinding of outcome assessment” and “incomplete outcome data” showed poor agreement, with 50.00%, 58.82% and 66.67%, respectively. Most disagreements came from extracting incomplete or different RCTs' information.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The level of agreement of the assessment between reviews has varied greatly in the field of nursing. More complete and accurate information of RCTs needs to be collected when conducting a SR.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14223,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Nursing Practice","volume":"30 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability of the risk of bias assessment in randomized controlled trials for nursing: A cross-sectional study\",\"authors\":\"Yi Yao MD, Nian Li PhD, Jieling Li MM, Jia Feng MM, Jingxin Ma MM, Xiaoyang Liao MM, Yonggang Zhang PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ijn.13302\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>To evaluate the percentage and reasons for disagreements in the risk of bias (RoB) assessments for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in more than one Cochrane review in the field of nursing.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Disagreement in RoB assessments reduces the credibility of the evidence summarized by systematic reviews (SRs). There is no study that evaluates the reliability of RoB assessments in nursing studies.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Design</h3>\\n \\n <p>Secondary data analysis based on research reports.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>RCTs included in more than one review in the nursing have been included. The disagreement of the assessment was analysed, and the possible reasons for disagreements were investigated.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Twenty-three RCTs were included in more than one review. The agreement of assessment ranged from 36.84% for “selective reporting” to 91.30% for “random sequence generation”. “Allocation concealment” showed the optimal agreement (84.21%). The items “blinding of participants and personnel”, “blinding of outcome assessment” and “incomplete outcome data” showed poor agreement, with 50.00%, 58.82% and 66.67%, respectively. Most disagreements came from extracting incomplete or different RCTs' information.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The level of agreement of the assessment between reviews has varied greatly in the field of nursing. More complete and accurate information of RCTs needs to be collected when conducting a SR.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14223,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Nursing Practice\",\"volume\":\"30 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Nursing Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijn.13302\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Nursing Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijn.13302","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reliability of the risk of bias assessment in randomized controlled trials for nursing: A cross-sectional study
Aim
To evaluate the percentage and reasons for disagreements in the risk of bias (RoB) assessments for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in more than one Cochrane review in the field of nursing.
Background
Disagreement in RoB assessments reduces the credibility of the evidence summarized by systematic reviews (SRs). There is no study that evaluates the reliability of RoB assessments in nursing studies.
Design
Secondary data analysis based on research reports.
Methods
RCTs included in more than one review in the nursing have been included. The disagreement of the assessment was analysed, and the possible reasons for disagreements were investigated.
Results
Twenty-three RCTs were included in more than one review. The agreement of assessment ranged from 36.84% for “selective reporting” to 91.30% for “random sequence generation”. “Allocation concealment” showed the optimal agreement (84.21%). The items “blinding of participants and personnel”, “blinding of outcome assessment” and “incomplete outcome data” showed poor agreement, with 50.00%, 58.82% and 66.67%, respectively. Most disagreements came from extracting incomplete or different RCTs' information.
Conclusions
The level of agreement of the assessment between reviews has varied greatly in the field of nursing. More complete and accurate information of RCTs needs to be collected when conducting a SR.
期刊介绍：
International Journal of Nursing Practice is a fully refereed journal that publishes original scholarly work that advances the international understanding and development of nursing, both as a profession and as an academic discipline. The Journal focuses on research papers and professional discussion papers that have a sound scientific, theoretical or philosophical base. Preference is given to high-quality papers written in a way that renders them accessible to a wide audience without compromising quality. The primary criteria for acceptance are excellence, relevance and clarity. All articles are peer-reviewed by at least two researchers expert in the field of the submitted paper.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
