Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 9 de 9
Filtrar
1.
Clin Nutr ; 43(7): 1626-1635, 2024 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38795681

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is a need to consolidate reporting guidance for nutrition randomised controlled trial (RCT) protocols. The reporting completeness in nutrition RCT protocols and study characteristics associated with adherence to SPIRIT and TIDieR reporting guidelines are unknown. We, therefore, assessed reporting completeness and its potential predictors in a random sample of published nutrition and diet-related RCT protocols. METHODS: We conducted a meta-research study of 200 nutrition and diet-related RCT protocols published in 2019 and 2021 (aiming to consider periods before and after the start of the COVID pandemic). Data extraction included bibliometric information, general study characteristics, compliance with 122 questions corresponding to items and subitems in the SPIRIT and TIDieR checklists combined, and mention to these reporting guidelines in the publications. We calculated the proportion of protocols reporting each item and the frequency of items reported for each protocol. We investigated associations between selected publication aspects and reporting completeness using linear regression analysis. RESULTS: The majority of protocols included adults and elderly as their study population (n = 73; 36.5%), supplementation as intervention (n = 96; 48.0%), placebo as comparator (n = 89; 44.5%), and evaluated clinical status as the outcome (n = 80; 40.0%). Most protocols described a parallel RCT (n = 188; 94.0%) with a superiority framework (n = 141; 70.5%). Overall reporting completeness was 52.0% (SD = 10.8%). Adherence to SPIRIT items ranged from 0% (n = 0) (data collection methods) to 98.5% (n = 197) (eligibility criteria). Adherence to TIDieR items ranged from 5.5% (n = 11) (materials used in the intervention) to 98.5% (n = 197) (description of the intervention). The multivariable regression analysis suggests that a higher number of authors [ß = 0.53 (95%CI: 0.28-0.78)], most recent published protocols [ß = 3.19 (95%CI: 0.24-6.14)], request of reporting guideline checklist during the submission process by the journal [ß = 6.50 (95%CI: 2.56-10.43)] and mention of SPIRIT by the authors [ß = 5.15 (95%CI: 2.44-7.86)] are related to higher reporting completeness scores. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting completeness in a random sample of 200 diet or nutrition-related RCT protocols was low. Number of authors, year of publication, self-reported adherence to SPIRIT, and journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines seem to be positively associated with reporting completeness in nutrition and diet-related RCT protocols.


Assuntos
Protocolos de Ensaio Clínico como Assunto , Dieta , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Humanos , Lista de Checagem/normas , Projetos de Pesquisa/normas , SARS-CoV-2 , Políticas Editoriais , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Guias como Assunto
2.
J Dent ; 144: 104869, 2024 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38301766

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the endorsement of open science practices by dental journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a meta-research study that included journals listed in the 2021 Journal Citation Reports under Dentistry. A comprehensive evaluation was performed by accessing journal websites to ascertain the availability of publicly accessible instructions to authors in Portuguese, English, or Spanish. A researcher extracted information from the "Instructions for Authors" section, encompassing the journal's impact factor, mention of any reporting guidelines, details on data sharing, acceptance of articles in preprint format, and information regarding study protocol registration. Descriptive data analysis was conducted using the Stata 14.0 program, and an Open Science Score (OSS) (ranging from 0 to 100 %) was calculated for each journal by considering five open science practices. Pearson's correlation test was conducted to determine the relationship between the OSS score and journal impact factor. RESULTS: Ninety journals were included in the study. Most journals (70 %) indicated the mandatory use of reporting guidelines, while 60 % recommended data sharing. Conversely, 46.7 % did not provide information on study protocol registration, and 44.4 % stipulated them as mandatory for authors. Regarding preprints, 50 % of the journals did not provide any information, but 46.7 % confirmed their acceptance. The mean OSS was 52.9 % (standard deviation 26.2). There was a weak correlation (Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.221) between the journal impact factor and OSS (P-value=0.036). CONCLUSION: This study found varying degrees of endorsement of open science practices among dental journals. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Dental practitioners rely on high-quality, evidence-based research for informed decision-making. By assessing the endorsement of open science practices, our study contributes to improving the quality and reliability of dental research, ultimately enhancing the evidence base for clinical practice.


Assuntos
Pesquisa em Odontologia , Publicação de Acesso Aberto , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Humanos , Odontologia , Guias como Assunto , Disseminação de Informação , Fator de Impacto de Revistas , Editoração
3.
Braz J Phys Ther ; 26(5): 100450, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36270163

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses are essential resources for the clinicians. They allow to evaluate the strengths and the weaknesses of the evidence to support clinical decision-making if they are adequately reported. Little is known in the rehabilitation field about the completeness of reporting of SRs and its relationship with the risk of bias (ROB). OBJECTIVES: Primary: 1) To evaluate the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews (SRs) published in rehabilitation journals by evaluating their adherence to the PRISMA 2009 checklist, 2) To investigate the relationship between ROB and completeness of reporting. Secondary: To study the association between completeness of reporting and journals and study characteristics. METHODS: A random sample of 200 SRs published between 2011 and 2020 in 68 rehabilitation journals was indexed under the "rehabilitation" category in the InCites database. Two independent reviewers evaluated adherence to the PRISMA checklist and assessed ROB using the ROBIS tool. Overall adherence and adherence to each PRISMA item and section were calculated. Regression analyses investigated the association between completeness of reporting, ROB, and other characteristics (impact factor, publication options, publication year, and study protocol registration). RESULTS: The mean overall PRISMA adherence across the 200 studies considered was 61.4%. Regression analyses show that having a high overall ROB is a significant predictor of lower adherence (B=-7.1%; 95%CI -12.1, -2.0). Studies published in fourth quartile journals displayed a lower overall adherence (B= -7.2%; 95%CI -13.2, -1.3) than those published in first quartile journals; the overall adherence increased (B= 11.9%; 95%CI 5.9, 18.0) if the SR protocol was registered. No association between adherence, publication options, and publication year was found. CONCLUSION: Reporting completeness in rehabilitation SRs is suboptimal and is associated with ROB, impact factor, and study registration. Authors of SRs should improve adherence to the PRISMA guideline, and journal editors should implement strategies to optimize the completeness of reporting.


Assuntos
Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Humanos , Lista de Checagem , Projetos de Pesquisa
4.
BMJ Open ; 10(6): e036148, 2020 06 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32565468

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Quality of reporting refers to how published articles communicate how the research was done and what was found. Gaps and imprecisions of reporting hamper the assessment of the methodological quality and internal and external validity. The CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) are a set of evidence-based recommendations of the minimum elements to be included in the reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to ensure a complete and transparent account of what was done, how it was done and what was found. Few studies have been conducted on the impact of CONSORT on RCTs published in Latin American and Spanish journals. We aim to assess the reporting quality of RCTs of three clinical specialities published in Spanish and Latin American journals, as well as to assess changes over time and associations of quality with journal and country indicators. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic survey of all RCTs published in Spanish-language journals in three clinical fields (dentistry, neurology and geriatrics) from 1990 to 2018. We will include RCTs from previous work that has identified all RCTs on these medical fields published in Spain and Latin America. We will update this work via handsearching of relevant journals. Assessment of quality of reporting will be conducted independently and in duplicate using the CONSORT 2010 Statement. We will also extract journal and country indicators. We will conduct descriptive statistics and secondary analyses considering the year, country, and journal of publication, among others. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Universidad de Santiago de Chile's ethics committee approved the protocol. We will disseminate the results of this work in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference proceedings. We expect to raise awareness among researchers, journal editors and funders on the importance of training in reporting guidelines and using them from the inception of RCT protocols.


Assuntos
Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/normas , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto , Odontologia , Geriatria , Humanos , América Latina , Neurologia , Projetos de Pesquisa , Espanha
6.
BMJ Open ; 9(9): e031259, 2019 09 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31558457

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To improve the trustworthiness of evidence, studies should be prospectively registered and research reports should adhere to existing standards. We aimed to systematically assess the degree to which endocrinology and internal medicine journals endorse study registration and reporting standards for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews (SRs) and observational studies (ObS). Additionally, we evaluated characteristics that predict endorsement of reporting or registration mechanism by these journals. DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study. SETTING: Journals included in the 'Endocrinology and Metabolism' and 'General and Internal Medicine' 2017 Journal Citation Reports. PARTICIPANTS: Journals with an impact factor of ≥1.0, focused on clinical medicine, and those who publish RCTs, SRs and ObS were included. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Requirement of adherence to reporting guideline and study registration as determined from the journals' author instructions. RESULTS: Of the 170 (82 endocrinology and 88 internal medicine) eligible journals, endorsing of reporting standards was the highest for RCTs, with 35 (43%) of endocrine journals and 55 (63%) of internal medicine journals followed by SRs, with 21 (26%) and 48 (55%), respectively, and lastly, by ObS with 41 (50%) of endocrine journals and 21 (24%) of internal medicine journals. In 78 (46%) journals RCTs were required to be registered and published in adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. Only 11 (6%) journals required registration of SRs. Internal medicine journals were more likely to endorse reporting guidelines than endocrine journals except for Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology. No other journal characteristic proved to be an independent predictor of reporting standard endorsement for RCTs besides trial registration. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight that study registration requirement and reporting guideline endorsement are suboptimal in internal medicine and endocrine journals. This malpractice may be further enhanced since endorsement does not imply enforcement, impairing the practice of evidence-based medicine.


Assuntos
Políticas Editoriais , Endocrinologia , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Fidelidade a Diretrizes , Medicina Interna , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Relatório de Pesquisa , Estudos Epidemiológicos , Humanos , Editoração , Registros
7.
J Oral Implantol ; 45(4): 327-333, 2019 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31216256

RESUMO

The aim of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding implant-supported single tooth or fixed partial dentures. We performed searches (PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science) to identify all RCTs published from 1996 to 2016 and assessed publication details, study characteristics, international collaboration networks, and characteristics related to the implant-supported treatment. Two reviewers independently screened the titles/abstracts and selected full texts. A total of 122 RCTs were included, and most of the authors were from Europe (72%). Most trials did not report a trial registering number (89.9%) or sample size calculation (58.2%). The use of the CONSORT Statement increased over the past 9 years. Trials were mostly conducted at universities (54.9%), and only 13.1% compared 2 or more implant brands. Loading protocol was the most prevalent main comparison among the included studies, and most of the RCTs did not clearly report whether they excluded patients with known risk factors. The studies reviewed here presented different methodological and publication characteristics, and many did not show aspects aligned with current research practices.


Assuntos
Implantação Dentária Endóssea , Implantes Dentários , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Odontologia , Humanos , Metanálise em Rede
9.
Colomb Med (Cali) ; 43(3): 182-3, 2012 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24893188
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA