C. Moura, S. Totton, J. Sargeant, T. O’Sullivan, D. Linhares, A. O'Connor
{"title":"在后reflect声明发布期改进猪疫苗接种试验报告的证据","authors":"C. Moura, S. Totton, J. Sargeant, T. O’Sullivan, D. Linhares, A. O'Connor","doi":"10.54846/jshap/1125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: Describe and compare the proportion of studies reporting the method used to assign study units to treatment groups, reporting a random allocation approach, reporting 18 REFLECT items, and the proportion of studies having a low risk-of-bias assessment in swine vaccination trial studies published after the REFLECT statement, compared to studies published before. Materials and Methods: The study population was 61 studies that evaluated vaccines targeted at pathogens affecting swine health or pork safety. Two reviewers assessed the reporting of 18 of 22 REFLECT items and 5 risk-of-bias domains. Results: Authors reported the method used to allocate experimental units in 33 of 42 (79%) and 14 of 19 (74%) studies published prior to and following REFLECT, respectively. There has been a substantial shift in the reporting of allocation approaches. Before 2011, only 2 of 25 (8%) studies that reported using random allocation provided supporting evidence. This increased in studies published between 2011-2017 (4 of 6; 66%). Before 2011, 8 of 33 (24%) studies reported using systematic allocation, which increased to 43% (6 of 14 studies) between 2011-2017. There has also been an increase in the prevalence of reporting for 14 of the 18 REFLECT items. There was an increase in the number of studies reporting evidence to support true randomization to group and data that suggests few baseline imbalances. Implications: Data from this study suggests swine vaccination trial reporting improved, which may be due to researchers having more access to better quality information.","PeriodicalId":17095,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Swine Health and Production","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence of improved reporting of swine vaccination trials in the post-REFLECT statement publication period\",\"authors\":\"C. Moura, S. Totton, J. Sargeant, T. O’Sullivan, D. Linhares, A. O'Connor\",\"doi\":\"10.54846/jshap/1125\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives: Describe and compare the proportion of studies reporting the method used to assign study units to treatment groups, reporting a random allocation approach, reporting 18 REFLECT items, and the proportion of studies having a low risk-of-bias assessment in swine vaccination trial studies published after the REFLECT statement, compared to studies published before. Materials and Methods: The study population was 61 studies that evaluated vaccines targeted at pathogens affecting swine health or pork safety. Two reviewers assessed the reporting of 18 of 22 REFLECT items and 5 risk-of-bias domains. Results: Authors reported the method used to allocate experimental units in 33 of 42 (79%) and 14 of 19 (74%) studies published prior to and following REFLECT, respectively. There has been a substantial shift in the reporting of allocation approaches. Before 2011, only 2 of 25 (8%) studies that reported using random allocation provided supporting evidence. This increased in studies published between 2011-2017 (4 of 6; 66%). Before 2011, 8 of 33 (24%) studies reported using systematic allocation, which increased to 43% (6 of 14 studies) between 2011-2017. There has also been an increase in the prevalence of reporting for 14 of the 18 REFLECT items. There was an increase in the number of studies reporting evidence to support true randomization to group and data that suggests few baseline imbalances. Implications: Data from this study suggests swine vaccination trial reporting improved, which may be due to researchers having more access to better quality information.\",\"PeriodicalId\":17095,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Swine Health and Production\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"18\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Swine Health and Production\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54846/jshap/1125\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Agricultural and Biological Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Swine Health and Production","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54846/jshap/1125","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evidence of improved reporting of swine vaccination trials in the post-REFLECT statement publication period
Objectives: Describe and compare the proportion of studies reporting the method used to assign study units to treatment groups, reporting a random allocation approach, reporting 18 REFLECT items, and the proportion of studies having a low risk-of-bias assessment in swine vaccination trial studies published after the REFLECT statement, compared to studies published before. Materials and Methods: The study population was 61 studies that evaluated vaccines targeted at pathogens affecting swine health or pork safety. Two reviewers assessed the reporting of 18 of 22 REFLECT items and 5 risk-of-bias domains. Results: Authors reported the method used to allocate experimental units in 33 of 42 (79%) and 14 of 19 (74%) studies published prior to and following REFLECT, respectively. There has been a substantial shift in the reporting of allocation approaches. Before 2011, only 2 of 25 (8%) studies that reported using random allocation provided supporting evidence. This increased in studies published between 2011-2017 (4 of 6; 66%). Before 2011, 8 of 33 (24%) studies reported using systematic allocation, which increased to 43% (6 of 14 studies) between 2011-2017. There has also been an increase in the prevalence of reporting for 14 of the 18 REFLECT items. There was an increase in the number of studies reporting evidence to support true randomization to group and data that suggests few baseline imbalances. Implications: Data from this study suggests swine vaccination trial reporting improved, which may be due to researchers having more access to better quality information.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Swine Health & Production (JSHAP) is an open-access and peer-reviewed journal published by the American Association of Swine Veterinarians (AASV) since 1993. The aim of the journal is the timely publication of peer-reviewed papers with a scope that encompasses the many domains of applied swine health and production, including the diagnosis, treatment, management, prevention and eradication of swine diseases, welfare & behavior, nutrition, public health, epidemiology, food safety, biosecurity, pharmaceuticals, antimicrobial use and resistance, reproduction, growth, systems flow, economics, and facility design. The journal provides a platform for researchers, veterinary practitioners, academics, and students to share their work with an international audience. The journal publishes information that contains an applied and practical focus and presents scientific information that is accessible to the busy veterinary practitioner as well as to the research and academic community. Hence, manuscripts with an applied focus are considered for publication, and the journal publishes original research, brief communications, case reports/series, literature reviews, commentaries, diagnostic notes, production tools, and practice tips. All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Swine Health & Production are peer-reviewed.