Reporting Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Hepatitis Monthly

AUTHORS

Alireza Karambakhsh 1 , Alireza Mehrazmay 1 , Mahmood Salesi 2 , *

1 Behavioral Sciences Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran

2 Research Center for Prevention of Oral and Dental Diseases, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran

How to Cite: Karambakhsh A, Mehrazmay A, Salesi M. Reporting Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Hepatitis Monthly, Hepat Mon. Online ahead of Print ; 16(6):e58752. doi: 10.5812/hepatmon.35736.

ARTICLE INFORMATION

Hepatitis Monthly: 16 (6); e58752
Published Online: June 12, 2016
Article Type: Letter
Received: December 23, 2015
Revised: April 12, 2016
Accepted: April 16, 2016
Crossmark

Crossmark

CHEKING

READ FULL TEXT

Keywords

Quality Assessment Randomized Controlled Trial Checklist

Copyright © 2016, Kowsar Corp. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.

Dear Editor,

It is important that randomized clinical trials (RCTs), as the most valuable research method for assessing the efficacy of treatments, are reported with the highest possible level of quality (1). To evaluate the quality of published RCTs reported in Hepatitis monthly, we examined whether there was a change in the quality of reporting over time. Of the 610 articles published from 2010 to 2014, 583 non-trial or non-human trials were screened, and 27 trials were identified. Within these 27 trials, ten reports were without a control group and failed to meet our eligibility criteria. Therefore, 17 RCTs were identified. We completed a comprehensive quality assessment of each report using the short form of the CONSORT 2010 checklist (www.consort-statement.org) and a five-point quality assessment instrument called the Jadad scale (2).

According to the Jadad score, the items including randomized, method of randomization, blinding, method of blinding, and dropouts/withdrawal of the Jadad scale were reported in 82.4%, 70.6%, 47%, 47%, and 94.1% of RCTs, respectively. According to this scale, the quality score of reporting was 3, 2.67, 3, 3.25, and 5 in the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, respectively, showing a decrease in 2011 with an increase in quality of reporting thereafter. However, according to the CONSORT checklist, only two studies earned full points. The quality reporting score was 5, 5, 5.75, 6, and 5.67, in the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, respectively. The 12 RCTs submitted from Iran demonstrated higher quality than the others (Table 1).

Table 1. Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Hepatitis Monthly, According to the Year of Publication
Controlled TrialsYears20102011201220132014TotalCountry
IranOther
n3344317125
Jadad scaleMean score32.6733.2554.073.53
CONSORT statementMean of number of appropriate reported items555.7565.675.485.755

In conclusion, in this assessment, we observed moderate quality scores in the reports of this journal. Training courses for reviewers, editorial use of standard reporting tools such as the CONSORT 2010 Statement, and consultation with methodologists can improve the quality of published RCTs.

Acknowledgements

Footnote

References

  • 1.

    Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996; 276(8) : 637 -9 [PubMed]

  • 2.

    Martyn-St James M, Carroll S. Meta-analysis of walking for preservation of bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. Bone. 2008; 43(3) : 521 -31 [DOI][PubMed]

  • COMMENTS

    LEAVE A COMMENT HERE: