Assessment of the methodological quality of reporting of randomized in four Iranian healthcare journals

To assess the quality of reporting randomized trials in four Iranian healthcare journals. Iran. Short survey. Four Iranian healthcare journals were handsearched for reports of randomized controlled trials classified using The Cochrane Collaboration eligibility criteria for studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Quality of reporting of the trials was assessed independently by two authors [MN, AA] for four dimensions: randomized sequence generation, allocation sequence concealment, blinding of outcome assessment and intention to treat analysis. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third author [ZF]. In total, reports of 75 randomized controlled trials reported in the four Iranian healthcare journals were assessed. Blinding was the best reported dimension [32%, 24/75] and intention to treat analysis the least [0% 0/75]. Sequence generation and allocation sequence concealment were infrequently reported [12%, 9/75 and 3%, 2/75 respectively]. There is room for improving the reporting of randomized trials in four Iranian healthcare journals. Authors and editors should be encouraged to follow guidance in the CONSORT Statement for improving the quality of reporting of parallel-group randomized trials [RCTs] and in the recent extension to CONSORT for reporting RCTs in abstracts in journals and conference proceedings

Identifying search terms likely to retrieve reports of randomized trials in Iranmedex - a polit project

Recent studies have led to improvements in the international coverage of reports of randomized controlled trials retrieved from electronic databases in developing countries. The objective of this study was to identify search terms likely to retrieve reports of randomized controlled trials in Iranmedex which could ultimately be developed into a sensitive search strategy for this database. The objective of this study was to identify a set of terms likely to retrieve reports of randomized controlled trials in Iranmedex, an Iranian healthcare database. We handsearched seven Iranian healthcare journals to identify reports of randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and quasi-randomized trials [CCTs] and examined the reports in three of these journals for study design terms and selected those occurring most frequently to compile an initial set of search terms. We then used these terms to search Iranmedex for reports of trials in the remaining four journals plus the initial three from which the search terms were derived and compared results with our original handsearch of these journals. The electronic records of any reports of trials missed by this initial set of terms were examined for additional relevant search terms which might improve retrieval. In the first set of journals handsearched we identified six study design terms which occurred most frequently in the relevant studies: clinical trial, double blind, randomly, prospective, placebo. Improvements to the initial set of search terms could be made by adding the study design term ['cross over']. Electronic searches would be more efficient and effective if authors and editors were consistently to abide by the guidance provided in The CONSORT Statement. The possibility for researchers to search the full text electronically in Iranmedex would greatly improve retrieval as relevant study design terms were frequently only to be found in the full text of many of the journals indexed in Iranmedex

comparison of handsearching versus EMBASE searching of the Annals of Saudi medicine to identify reports of randomized controlled trials

Healthcare decision-making needs to be informed by high quality and timely research evidence. The randomized controlled trial has long been considered the gold standard in the hierarchy of evidence. Trials involving sufficient numbers of participants are essential to distinguish reliably between the effects of healthcare interventions and the effects of bias or chance. The synthesis of the results of these trials in systematic reviews can provide reliable evidence about the effects of these interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration, an international organization dedicated to improving healthcare through the preparation of systematic reviews, has focused on the systematic electronic searching of Medline and EMBASE and the systematic hand searching of over 2000 general and specialized healthcare journals for reports of randomized controlled trials. This involves reading each document in a journal to decide if a report is a randomized trial, according to Cochrane eligibility criteria [1]. The efforts of the many volunteers working within the Cochrane Collaboration have added a substantial number of previously buried reports of randomized controlled trials to the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL] published in The Cochrane Library. Some of these reports of trials may have been buried as a result of inconsistencies in indexing [indexing bias], a lack of cover-to-cover indexing, or because they have been published in journals not indexed in the major healthcare databases such as Medline and EMBASE [database bias] or in journals published in languages other than English [language bias]. A good example of language bias was provided in a study of 68 Spanish general medicine journals, which found that only six were indexed in Medline [2]. The Bahrain Branch of the UK Cochrane Centre is contributing to efforts to minimize bias through a comprehensive handsearching of journals published in the Arab world

Assessment of patient reported outcomes of cataract surgery using the first Arabic visual function assessment tool

The two aims of this study were to develop a vision related quality of life assessment tool for the Arabic speaking communities and to conduct a pilot study using this tool to assess preoperative visual function of cataract patients and evaluate patient reported outcomes of phacoemulsification and extracapsular cataract extraction. An Arabic structured questionnaire was developed to assess both distant and near with a scoring system designed to be comparable to the available instruments in other languages. The instrument was given the name Arabic visual Function Test [AVFT] and was submitted to MAP1 Research Institute for registration as the first Arabic vision related quality of life assessment tool. The instrument was then utilized to assess pre- and postoperative visual function of forty patients undergoing cataract extraction by either phacoemulsification or extracapsular extraction techniques. The results were compared to patients' performance on Snellen's visual acuity chart. The preoperative visual acuity and AVFT scores showed a positive linear relationship and a good level of agreement in both groups. Both preoperative and postoperative AVFT scores of most patients correlated well with their objective visual acuity measurements using the standard Snellen's chart. Although postoperative best corrected visual acuity was higher amongst the phacoemulsification group, there was no significant difference between postoperative AVFT scores of patients undergoing phacoemulsification and extracapsular cataract extraction one month after the operation. The study concluded that patient reported visual function questionnaires are useful adjuncts to standard visual acuity testing for both preoperative assessment of visual function and postoperative evaluation of clinical outcome of cataract surgery. Further research is needed to determine the test-retest reliability of the Arabic visual function test against other visual function questionnaires available in the western world