Overview of systematic reviews of Chinese herbal injections for sepsis / 中国中药杂志

In this study, an overview of systematic reviews/Meta-analysis(SR/MA) of Chinese herbal injections for sepsis was performed to provide references for clinical practice and promote the quality improvement of clinical evidence. Eight Chinese and English databases such as CNKI, Medline, and EMbase were electronically searched for SR/MA of Chinese herbal injections for sepsis from database inception to June 2022. AMSTAR 2, PRISMA 2020, and GRADE system, combined with Recommendations for Clinical Evidence Grading on Traditional Chinese Medicine Based on Evidence Body, were applied to evaluate the methodological quality, reporting quality, and evidence quality of the included articles. Twenty-seven articles of SR/MA were included, containing four Chinese herbal injections(Xuebijing Injection, Shenfu Injection, Shenmai Injection, and Shengmai Injection). AMSTAR 2 checklist showed that the methodological quality of the SR/MA ranged from moderate to very low. Item 2(prior study design) was the critical item with poor scores, and the non-critical items with poor scores were items 3(explain the selection of the study designs), items 10(report on the sources of funding), and items 16(conflicts of interest stated). In terms of PRISMA 2020, items in eight topics with complete reporting of missing>50%, including search strategy, certainty assessment, results of syntheses, certainty of evidence, registration and protocol, support, competing interests, availability of data, code and other materials. The included SR/MA involved 30 outcome indicators. Evidence quality of mortality, APACHE Ⅱ, and safety, the top three outcome indicators, was evaluated, and all of them were graded as the medium level. The lack of random allocation sequence, allocation concealment mechanism, blinding, and trial sample size was the main reason for the reduction of the evidence level. The available evidence shows that Chinese herbal injections can serve as an effective and safe adjunctive treatment for sepsis, which can reduce mortality, inhibit inflammation, improve coagulation function, and regulate immune function, tissue perfusion, and oxygenation in patients with sepsis. However, the quality of SR/MA was suboptimal, and more high-quality SR/MA is needed to provide evidence to support the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal injections in the treatment of sepsis.

Evaluation of methodological and reporting quality of domestic clinical guidelines for hyperuricemia / 中国中药杂志

This study aims to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of diagnosis and treatment guidelines for hyperuricemia as well as the expert consensuses and promote the understanding and application of the diagnosis and treatment guidelines for hyperuricemia. With "hyperuricemia" "guidelines" "consensus" "recommendations" as the key words in titles, the authors searched for the published clinical guidelines on hyperuricemia in Chinese against CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, Medlive and the official website of the industry association. The retrieval time limit was until May 31, 2021. The appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation Ⅱ(AGREEⅡ) and the reporting items for practice guidelines in health care(RIGHT) were employed to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of 14 guidelines/consensuses included. The average scores of the guidelines/consensuses were 80.85%(48.61%-98.61%) for the domain of scope and purpose, 34.52%(0-69.44%) for the domain of stakeholder involvement, 35.53%(6.25%-92.19%) for the domain of rigor of development, 55.85%(23.61%-86.11%) for the domain of clarity of presentation, 26.19%(0-76.04%) for the domain of applicability, and 21.42%(0-50.00%) for the domain of editorial independence. Nine guidelines/consensuses were of medium overall quality with grade B recommendation, and five guidelines/consensuses were of poor quality with grade C recommendation. The RIGHT classified the fourteen guidelines/consensuses into one of high reporting quality, three of medium reporting quality, and ten of low reporting quality. The results of this study indicate that the standardization and rigor of the methodological quality and the reporting quality of the clinical guidelines/consensuses for hyperuricemia in China remain to be strengthened.

Assessing quality of systematic reviews in dermatology from the Philippines using AMSTAR 2 Part 1: Methodologic quality of dermatological systematic reviews from the Philippines

@#BACKGROUND: Quality systematic reviews (SRs) are essential in the practice of evidence-based dermatology. We assessed the methodologic quality of SRs in dermatology from the Philippines. METHODS: We searched databases (MEDLINE, CDSR, PROSPERO, HERDIN; from inception until June 30, 2019), and secondary sources. We included SRs, authored by Filipino primary authors, which included clinical trials on any intervention for the treatment or prevention of a dermatologic disease or for maintenance of healthy skin, hair or nails. Two reviewers independently extracted data and appraised the methodological quality of each included SR using the AMSTAR 2. The 16-item AMSTAR 2 has 7 critical items and 9 non-critical items. The number of critical items mainly determine the overall confidence in the results of the review. Descriptive analysis using means and standard deviation for continuous data, and frequency and percentage distribution for categorical data were employed. RESULTS: Twenty SRs were included in this review, and were mostly published in the 2010s. Majority of SRs had three authors, who belonged to a single institution, with at least one dermatologist. The most common topic was infections and both oral and topical interventions were used. Majority had 5 included studies in the SRs, with a median number of 425 participants. The median number of critical flaws in the included SRs was 4.5, and non-critical flaws, 5. Overall confidence was critically low in majority (19/20 ) of included reviews, with only one review rated as low. CONCLUSION: The methodologic quality of the dermatology SRs from the Philippines based on the AMSTAR 2 tool was poor with a rating of critically low in majority. There is a need to improve quality of conduct and reporting through dissemination of the reporting guidelines such as the PRISMA

Quality evaluation of the Meta-analysis literature published by acupuncture journals in Chinese Science Citation Database / 中国针灸

OBJECTIVE@#To evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of Meta-analysis literature published by acupuncture journals included in Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD), and to provide references and demonstration for relevant studies.@*METHODS@#The Meta-analysis literature published before December 2017 in , , and was retrieved by computer. AMSTAR was used for methodology quality evaluation, and PRISMA was used for reporting quality evaluation.@*RESULTS@#A total of 69 literature was included. Among them, the co-authorship rate was 100% and the cooperation degree was 5.45. The first authors came from 32 institutions, and 29 literature (42.0%) was funded. The cited rate was 98.6%, and averagely each paper was cited 16.3 times. The mean score of methodology quality evaluation was (7.78±1.14) points, including 14 high-quality literature (20.3%), 50 moderate-quality literature (72.5%) and 5 low-quality literature (7.2%). The average score of reporting quality evaluation was (20.33±2.36) points, including 24 relatively complete literature (34.8%), 41 literature with certain defects (59.4%) and 4 literature with serious defects (5.8%).@*CONCLUSION@#The Meta-analysis reports published by acupuncture journals in CSCD have relatively high methodological quality and reporting quality, which could provide evidence for clinical decision making, but still the quality level needed to be further enhanced according to the writing standard of Meta-analysis report. At the same time, the overall level of experimental research should be constantly improved to promote the development of evidence-based research on acupuncture and promote the formation of high-quality evidence.

The methodological quality assessment of systematic review/meta-analysis of Shenfu injection in treating heart failure based on AMSTAR 2 / 国际中医中药杂志

Objective To evaluate the methodological quality of the systematic evaluation literature of Shenfu injection in the treatment of heart failure with AMSTAR 2 statement.Methods Searching includes Chongqing VIP Database,China Knowledge Network Database,China Biomedical Literature Database.Wanfang Database,PubMed Database,Cochrane library database,search time limit from database construction to Dec 31 st,2017.Two evaluators independently screened the literature based on inclusion and exclusion criteria,and applied the AMSTAR 2 statement list to evaluate all the systematic review literatures included.Results A total of 9 articles were included in the study,and the average reporting rate is 43.75％.The low-reporting domains focused on the review protocols prior to the research,the types of the included studies,the list of excluded documents,the evaluation and causes of bias of risks and heterogeneity,and reports on funds and conflicts of interest.Conclusions The average reporting rate is low overall,indicating that the current reports of the systematic review has defects,which affects the credibility of the systematic review and the use of evidence.For the determination of clinical decision-making,it is recommended that researchers should follow the AMSTAR 2 statement to improve the methodological or reporting quality.

Initial validation of a scale to measure methodological quality in prognosis studies: the MInCir proposal / Validación inicial de una escala para medir calidad metodológica en estudios de pronóstico: la propuesta de MInCir

Research in methodological quality (MQ) of prognosis studies (PS) is relevant in view of the important number of studies developed in this scenario. However, currently there are no instruments designed to measure MQ in PS, thus the aim of this study was to validate a scale to determine the MQ in PS. Scale validation study. Two independent researchers applied the scale (10 items/4 domains) in 119 articles found in 13 Journals of high, medium and low impact factor. Criterion validity was determined by contrasting MQ scores with Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine levels of evidence. Construct validity of extreme groups and high and low impact factors were estimated. Intraclass correlation coefficient was used to determine interobserver reliability, and the cut-off point was calculated using a ROC curve. The best cut-off point was 33, with an under curve area of 82.6 %. Criterion and construct validity were statistically significant with (p<0.001). Interobserver reliability was 0.91 and a scale to measure the MQ in PS was validated.

El objetivo de este estudio fue validar una escala para determinar calidad metodológica (CM) de estudios de pronóstico (EP). Se realizó un estudio de validación de escalas. La escala, compuesta por 10 ítems y 4 dominios; se aplicó a 119 artículos de 13 revistas, de factores de impacto alto, medio y bajo; por dos investigadores independientes. La validez del criterio se determinó al contrastar las puntuaciones de CM de cada artículo con los niveles de evidencia del Centro de Medicina Basada en la Evidencia de Oxford de la revista en la cual fueron publicados. Se estimó la validez de constructo de grupos extremos (factores de impacto alto y bajo). Se utilizó el coeficiente de correlación intraclase para determinar la confiabilidad interobservador, y el punto de corte se calculó construyendo curvas ROC. El mejor punto de corte fue 33 puntos (área bajo la curva de 82,6 %). La validez de criterio y de constructo fueron estadísticamente significativas (p<0,001). La confiabilidad interobservador fue 0,91. Se validó una escala para medir CM en EP.

Quality of methodology and reporting of Meta-analyses on acupuncture treating ischemic stroke in China / 中国针灸

OBJECTIVE@#To evaluate the quality of methodology and reporting of Meta-analyses on acupuncture treating ischemic stroke in China.@*METHODS@#The domestic literature of systematic reviews (SRs) on acupuncture treating ischemic stroke was retrieved from CBM, VIP, CNKI and WANFANG databases. The quality of methodology and reporting was measured by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).@*RESULTS@#Seven studies involving 6 papers in Chinese and 1 paper in English were chosen from 402 papers. The deficiencies of methodology mainly contained incomplete retrieval strategy, less attention to the publication bias and the heterogeneity, etc. The shortages of reporting was on retrieval strategy reporting, the studies features and the risk of bias reporting and evidence strength level reporting, etc.@*CONCLUSION@#At present the quality of methodology and reporting of SRs on acupuncture treating ischemic stroke in China has flaws, which needs improvement.

The assessment of pharmacoeconomic studies quality of Levodopa's use for the management of Parkinson's diseases, 2010-2015 / Evaluación de la calidad de estudios farmacoeconómicos del uso de Levodopa para el manejo de la enfermedad de Parkinson, 2010-2015

SUMMARY Levodopa (LD) has been the first choice in the management of Parkinson's disease (PD), since its introduction in the drug market; however, its prolonged use is related to the occurrence of motor complications, affecting the functionality and quality of life. Parkinson's disease is one of the most frequent among the neurodegenerative diseases in the world, and it is expected that the number of people who suffer it, will increase due to global population aging. The PD represents, nowadays and for the future, a high economic burden from all perspectives, including patients, payers, and society. So it is necessary to know about the use of LD in its treatment and to realize the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies in the past five years, to identify reliable sources of information related to the costs and benefits of this medication to contribute in making decisions. The aim of this paper is to assess the methodological quality of pharmacoeconomic studies related to the use of LD in PD, specifically those that are identified as cost-utility studies, applying the QHES instrument. A total of19 articles were found, of which 5 met the inclusion criteria and were subjected to examination. The average overall score obtained after the evaluation was 77.2 out of 100, making evident a good quality of studies according to the method used.

RESUMEN La Levodopa (LD) ha sido desde su introducción en el mercado la primera elección en el manejo de la enfermedad de Parkinson (EP); sin embargo, su uso prolongado está relacionado con la aparición de complicaciones motoras, afectándose la funcionalidad y calidad de vida. La EP es una de las enfermedades neurodegenerativas que se presenta con mayor frecuencia en el mundo y se espera que el número de personas que la padecen aumente, debido al envejecimiento poblacional a nivel mundial. La EP representa, actualmente y a futuro, una alta carga económica desde todas las perspectivas, incluyendo: pacientes, pagadores y la sociedad; por lo cual es necesario conocer el uso de la LD en el tratamiento de la misma y lograr determinar la calidad de los estudios farmacoeconómicos realizados en los últimos cinco años, para identificar fuentes fiables de información relacionadas con los costos y los beneficios de este medicamento que aporten en la toma de decisiones. El objetivo de este artículo es evaluar la calidad metodológica de los estudios farmacoeconómicos relacionados con el uso de la LD en la EP, específicamente aquellos que se cataloguen como estudios de costo-utilidad, aplicando el instrumento QHES. Se encontraron en total 19 artículos, de los cuales cinco cumplieron los criterios de inclusión y fueron sometidos al respectivo análisis. El puntaje global promedio obtenido posterior a la evaluación fue de 77,2 sobre 100, haciendo evidente una buena calidad de los estudios de acuerdo con el método utilizado.

Methological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on acupuncture for stroke: A review of review / 中国结合医学杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses regarding acupuncture intervention for stroke and the primary studies within them.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Two researchers searched PubMed, Cumulative index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, Cochrane, Allied and Complementary Medicine, Ovid Medline, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang and Traditional Chinese Medical Database to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses about acupuncture for stroke published from the inception to December 2016. Review characteristics and the criteria for assessing the primary studies within reviews were extracted. The methodological quality of the reviews was assessed using adapted Oxman and Guyatt Scale. The methodological quality of primary studies was also assessed.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Thirty-two eligible reviews were identified, 15 in English and 17 in Chinese. The English reviews were scored higher than the Chinese reviews (P=0.025), especially in criteria for avoiding bias and the scope of search. All reviews used the quality criteria to evaluate the methodological quality of primary studies, but some criteria were not comprehensive. The primary studies, in particular the Chinese reviews, had problems with randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, dropouts and withdrawals, intent-to-treat analysis and adverse events.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Important methodological flaws were found in Chinese systematic reviews and primary studies. It was necessary to improve the methodological quality and reporting quality of both the systematic reviews published in China and primary studies on acupuncture for stroke.</p>

Pautas de chequeo, parte III: STROBE y ARRIVE / Cheklists, part III: STROBE and ARRIVE

Los ensayos clínicos controlados son el diseño por excelencia de la medicina basada en la evidencia. Sin embargo, son el final de un largo camino que comienza con interrogantes o hipótesis que se desprenden de otros tipos de diseños. Algunos de los diseños que se encuentran en este camino son los estudios observacionales analíticos y los estudios de experimentacion en animales. Para que la información entregada por estos tipos de diseños sea de buena calidad, requieren cumplir con estándares mínimos en su reporte, y para esto es que se han diseñado las pautas STROBE y ARRIVE, respectivamente. La iniciativa STROBE fue formada el 2004 tomando como base la experiencia CONSORT, con el objetivo de facilitar la comunicación de estudios observacionales; incluye 22 ítems agrupados en 6 dominios (título/resumen, introducción, método, resultados, discusión y otra información). La pauta ARRIVE comenzó su elaboración durante el 2009, para ser finalmente publicada durante el 2010; incluye 20 ítems, los cuales se agrupan en 5 dominios (título/resumen, introducción, método, resultados y discusión). El uso de estas pautas ha llevado a una mejora en la calidad del reporte de estos tipos de diseños. Sin embargo, la calidad metodológica de muchos estudios continúa siendo subóptima, por lo que se requiere además de otras estrategias para la mejora global de este constructo. Este tercer artículo de la serie describe ambas pautas de chequeo para su uso por parte de los autores de la REVISTA CHILENA DE CIRUGÍA, con el fin de lograr una mejora de sus artículos de una forma simple y eficiente.

Controlled clinical trials are the ultimate design of evidence-based medicine. However, they are the end of a long journey that begins with questions or hypotheses that arise from other types of designs. Some of the designs found in this way are analytical observational studies and experimental studies in animals. To reach a good quality standard by these types of designs, they are required to comply with minimum standards in his report, for this is that they have designed the STROBE and ARRIVE checklists respectively. The STROBE checklist was developed in 2004 based on the CONSORT experience, in order to facilitate the reporting of observational studies, includes 22 items grouped into 6 domains (title / abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion and other information). The ARRIVE checklist began developing in 2009, to be finally published in 2010, includes 20 items, which are grouped as 5 domain (title / abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion). Using these checklists has led to improved quality report these types of designs. However the methodological quality of many studies remains suboptimal, so it also requires other strategies for overall improvement of this construct. This third article in the series describes both checklists for use by the authors of the REVISTA CHILENA DE CIRUGÍA, in order to achieve an improvement of its items in a simple and efficient way.

Pautas de chequeo, parte IV: STARD y CARE / Checklists, part IV: STARD and CARE

Los ensayos clínicos controlados representan el diseño más destacado en la investigación biomédica. Sin embargo, existen otros diseños metodológicos que aportan información relevante para la medicina basada en la evidencia: los estudios sobre precisión de pruebas diagnósticas y reportes de caso. Al igual que con otros diseños, estos necesitan cumplir con estándares de calidad en su reporte, para lo que se han diseñados las pautas STARD y CARE, respectivamente. La pauta STARD comenzó a desarrollarse en 1999, siendo publicada en 2003, e incluye 25 ítems agrupados en 5 dominios (título/resumen/palabras clave, introducción, métodos, resultados, discusión). La pauta CARE se elaboró de acuerdo a la Guía para Desarrolladores de Guías de Reporte de Investigación en Salud, siendo publicada en 2013, e incluye 13 ítems, sin dominios declarados y que es de uso general para todos los ámbitos de la medicina. Así como con otras pautas de chequeo, el uso de STARD se ha asociado a una mejora en la calidad del reporte de estudios sobre precisión diagnóstica. En el caso de CARE, es necesario evaluar con el paso de los años su impacto en la calidad de los reportes de caso. Este último artículo de la serie describe ambas pautas de chequeo para su uso por parte de los autores de la REVISTA CHILENA DE CIRUGÍA, con el fin de lograr una mejora de sus artículos de una forma simple y eficiente.

Controlled clinical trials represent the design highlight in biomedical research. However, there are other methodological designs that provide relevant information for evidence-based medicine: studies of diagnostic test accuracy and case reports. As with other designs, they need to meet quality standards in their reporting, that is the reason for the design of STARD and CARE checklists, respectively. The STARD checklist began to develop in 1999, being published in 2003, it includes 25 items grouped into five domains (title / abstract / keywords, introduction, methods, results, discussion). The CARE checklist was made according to the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines, was published in 2013, it includes 13 items, without declared domains and is commonly used for all areas of medicine. As with other checklist, the use of STARD has been associated with an improvement in quality report of studies on diagnostic accuracy. In the case of CARE, it is necessary to assess over the years its impact on quality of case reports. This last article in the series describes both checklists for use by the authors of the REVISTA CHILENA DE CIRUGÍA, in order to achieve an improvement in their articles in a simple and efficient way.

Calidad metodológica de las evaluaciones económicas completas, publicadas en revistas médicas cubanas (1999-2014) / Methodological quality of complete economic evaluations published in Cuban medical journals from 1999 to 2014

Objetivo: determinar la calidad metodológica de las evaluaciones económicas completas publicadas en revistas médicas cubanas. Métodos: estudio observacional, descriptivo y transversal en 21 artículos, declarados por su autores como evaluaciones económicas completas, publicados entre 1999 y 2014 en 47 revistas médicas cubanas reconocidas por el Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología y Medio Ambiente. A todos se les aplicó una guía de evaluación que incluyó: año de publicación, revista, objetivo, problema, opciones, horizonte temporal, perspectiva, costo, efectos sobre la salud y cálculo de las razones costo/efectividad. Resultados: los artículos se concentraron en ocho revistas. La mayor cantidad está en la Revista Cubana de Farmacia. Le siguieron en importancia la Revista Cubana de Salud Pública y MEDISAN. Ninguno de los aspectos estaba correctamente tratado en más de 80 por ciento de los trabajos revisados. Los resultados más desfavorables estaban en la declaración de la perspectiva, presente en menos de 20 por ciento de los trabajos y el análisis de sensibilidad en menos de 30 por ciento. Menos de la mitad de los trabajos abordaron adecuadamente la presentación del problema de investigación, los objetivos, el horizonte temporal, los costos y la razón costo efectividad incremental. No se encontró ningún artículo en los últimos tres años. Conclusiones: son escasas las evaluaciones económicas publicadas. La mayoría tiene limitaciones metodológicas. Se observa insuficiente desarrollo de esta temática en el país y apunta hacia la importancia de continuar insistiendo en la divulgación de los aspectos metodológicos básicos de estas evaluaciones tanto para investigadores como para revisores y editores de revistas científicas(AU)

Objective: to determine the methodical quality of complete economic evaluations published in Cuban medical journals from 1999 to 2014. Methods: observational, descriptive and cross-sectional study of articles classified by their authors as complete economic evaluations and published from 1999 to 2014 in 47 Cuban medical journals authorized by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment. The applied evaluation guide included year of publication, journal, objective, problem, options, time frame, prospects, cost, health effects and estimation of the cost/effectiveness ratio. Results: twenty one papers were found, but in the last three years no paper has been published. These papers were mainly published in eight journals, being the first Revista Cubana de Farmacia, followed by Revista Cubana de Salud Publica and MEDISAN. None of the aspects was correctly addressed in over 80 percent of revised papers. The worst results were found in statement of perspective present in less than 20 percent of papers in addition to sensitivity analysis in less than 30 percent of them. Almost 50 of papers adequately dealt with the submission of research problems, objectives, time frame, costs and the incremental cost/effectiveness ratio. Conclusions: published economic evaluations are still scanty and most of them exhibit methodological faults. There is insufficient development in this area nationwide, which points to the importance of insisting once again on the dissemination of the basic methodological aspects of these evaluations aimed at researchers who act as reviewers and as editors of scientific journals(AU)

Calidad metodológica de ensayos clínicos sobre periodoncia publicados en revistas ISI / Methodological quality of periodontal clinical trials published in ISI Journals

Describir la calidad metodológica de los ensayos clínicos de periodoncia en revistas indexadas en el Institute for Scientific Information. Material y métodos: Estudio observacional descriptivo en el que se evaluaron los ensayos clínicos publicados entre Enero de 2008 y Diciembre de 2012, de las cuatro revistas de periodoncia indexadas a ISI, con mayor factor de impacto en los últimos 5 años según Journal Citation Reports. Se realizó una estrategia de búsqueda en PubMed para cada revista. Sólo los ensayos clínicos fueron seleccionados para el análisis cualitativo por medio de una escala de calidad metodológica. Los datos fueron analizados utilizando el paquete estadístico SPSS Statistics 20 para Windows (IBM., Chicago, USA.) y presentados mediante estadística descriptiva. Resultados: De las revistas que cumplieron los criterios de selección, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Periodontology, Journal of Periodontal Research e International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry, se analizaron 387 ensayos clínicos. De los 24 puntos máximos obtenibles de la escala, la media alcanzada por los manuscritos evaluados fue de 17,45 puntos. Conclusión: La calidad metódológica de los ensayos clínicos en periodoncia, indexados en revistas ISI, fue deficiente...

To describe the methodological quality of periodontal clinical trials in journals indexed by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI).Materials and methods: Descriptive observational study in which the clinical trials published in four ISI-indexed periodontics journals between January 2008 and December 2012 were evaluated. The journals were selected as they had had the highest impact factor in the last 5 years according to the Journal Citation Reports.For each journal, papers were searched for in PubMed. Only clinical trials were selected to conduct the qualitative analysis using a methodological quality scale. Statistical analysis was conducted with SPSS Statistics 20 for Windows (IBM, Chicago, USA), and the data were presented through descriptive statistics. Results: The following journals fulfilled the selection criteria: Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Periodontology, Journal of Periodontal Research and International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry. From these journals, 387 clinical trials were analyzed. Of the maximum of 24 points in the scale, the mean reached was 17.45 points. Conclusion: The methodological quality of periodontal clinical trials indexed in ISI is deficient...

Pautas de chequeo, parte I: consort y trend / Cheklists, part I: consort and trend

One of the most common problems in scientific articles is its poor reporting, a situation that leads to lack of information, affecting internal and external validity, questioning his contribution and usefulness. This has been studied leading to propositions by the international scientific community, reflected in a series of guidelines or checklists as CONSORT and TREND for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non-randomized intervention studies (NRISs) respectively. The CONSORT checklist was created in 1996, with a final version in 2010, consisting of 25 items, grouped into 6 domains: Title and Summary, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Other information; representing the critical points in a RCT report. In many cases RCTs are no feasible so other research designs such as NRISs has to be executed, for this design the TREND checklist was developed in 2004, consisting of 22 items, grouped into 5 domains: Title and Summary, Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion. Even when the evidence has been contradictory regarding the impact of these checklists, they represent an important tool to improve biomedical research. This article tries to explain these checklists and encourage its use by the authors of the Revista Chilena de Cirugía, in function to contribute to continuous improvement of their articles in a simple and efficient way.

Uno de los problemas más frecuentes en los artículos científicos es su deficiente reporte, situación que redunda en falta de información, afectando la validez interna y externa, cuestionando su aporte y utilidad. Esta situación ha sido motivo de estudio y propuestas por parte de la comunidad científica internacional, que se materializan en una serie de pautas de chequeo o checklists como CONSORT y TREND para ensayos clínicos aleatorizados (ECA) y estudios de intervención no aleatorizados (EINA) respectivamente. La propuesta CONSORT nace en 1996, con una última versión en 2010, constituida por 25 ítems, agrupados en 6 dominios: Título y Resumen, Introducción, Metodología, Resultados, Discusión y Otra información; representando puntos esenciales a reportar en un ECA. En muchas ocasiones se debe recurrir a otro tipo de diseños de investigación como los EINA, para los que en 2004 se desarrolló la pauta TREND, el cual consta de 22 ítems, agrupados en 5 dominios: Título y resumen, Introducción, Métodos, Resultados y Discusión. Aun cuando la evidencia ha sido contradictoria respecto al impacto de estas pautas, estas representan una herramienta relevante para mejorar la investigación biomédica. El presente artículo intenta dar a conocer estos checklists e incentivar su uso por parte de los autores de la Revista Chilena de Cirugía, con lo cual se espera contribuir a una mejora continua de sus artículos de una forma simple y eficiente.

Quality evaluation of randomized controlled trials related traditional Chinese medical nursing which published in key Chinese nursing journals / 中国实用护理杂志

Objective To evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related traditional Chinese medical nursing which published in key Chinese journals.Methods Electronic databases were searched for collecting RCTs related traditional Chinese medical nursing which published in key Chinese journals.The impact factors of all these journals ranked the first three in the Chinese S & T journal citation reports,2013.The CONSORT statement and Cochrane collaboration risk of bias tool were applied to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality respectively.Results A total of 135 articles were identified to meet the criteria.To the best of our knowledge,however,none of these articles have reported the 14 items in the CONSORT statement,either without the CONSORT flow diagram.According to the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool,17.0％(23/135) of these articles was confirmed to be high risk of bias,with the rest uncertain in the degree of bias.Conclusions The reporting and methodological quality of RCTs on traditional Chinese medical nursing were poor.It is urgent to improve the methodological and reporting quality of RCTs on traditional Chinese medical nursing researches.

Assessment for Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in the Field of Hepatology

A systematic review (SR) provides the best and most objective analysis of the existing evidence in a particular field. SRs and derived conclusions are essential for evidence-based strategies in medicine and evidence-based guidelines in clinical practice. The popularity of SRs has also increased markedly in the field of hepatology. However, although SRs are considered to provide a higher level of evidence with greater confidence than original articles, there have been no reports on the quality of SRs and meta-analyses (MAs) in the field of hepatology. Therefore, we performed a quality assessment of 225 SRs and MAs that were recently published in the field of hepatology (January 2011 to September 2014) using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Using AMSTAR, we revealed both a shortage of assessments of the scientific quality of individual studies and a publication bias in many SRs and MAs. This review addresses the concern that SRs and MAs need to be conducted in a stricter and more objective manner to minimize bias and random errors. Thus, SRs and MAs should be supported by a multi-disciplinary approach that includes clinical experts, methodologists, and statisticians.

Evaluación de la calidad de estudios farmacoeconómicos del uso de los inhibidores de la bomba de protones en enfermedad ácido péptica / Quality assessment of pharmacoeconomic studies of the use of proton pump inhibitors in peptic ulcer disease

Los inhibidores de la bomba de protones (IBP) son un grupo de fármacos que reducen la secreción de ácido en el estómago, por lo que son ampliamente utilizados en el tratamiento de la úlcera péptica. La notable prevalencia e incidencia de esta patología sugiere que los recursos económicos y humanos dedicados a su tratamiento son considerables y, por tanto, es necesario identificar fuentes fiables de información relacionadas con los costos y los beneficios de estos agentes terapéuticos que permitan valorarlos en términos de eficiencia para mejorar su prescripción racional. Este trabajo realizó una revisión de los estudios farmacoeconómicos correspondientes al uso de los ibp en la prevención y tratamiento de la enfermedad ácido péptica y se presenta una evaluación pareada de la calidad metodológica de la bibliografía basada en el instrumento qhes (Ofman et al., [10]). De los diez artículos revisados, cuatro son de costo-efectividad, dos de costo-utilidad, tres de descripción de costos y uno de minimización de costos. El puntaje global promedio obtenido por los estudios evaluados fue de 66,6 sobre 100. Cuatro de ellos puntuaron por debajo de 60, haciendo evidente deficiencias en la calidad de los estudios de acuerdo con el instrumento usado, además pone de manifiesto que se necesitan evaluaciones farmacoeconómicas en relación con el uso de los ibp para la prevención y el tratamiento de la úlcera péptica, especialmente estudios de costo-efectividad, que cumplan con los estándares de calidad metodológica.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are a group of drugs that reduce gastric acid secretion and therefore are widely used in the treatment of peptic ulcer. The remarkable prevalence and incidence of this disease suggests that economic and human resources devoted to treatment are considerable and therefore it is necessary to identify reliable sources of information related to the costs and benefits of these therapeutic agents to appraise in terms of efficiency to improve rational prescribing. This paper conducted a review of pharmacoeconomic studies pertaining to the use of ppi in the prevention and treatment of peptic acid disease, as it presents a paired assessment of methodological quality of the literature instrument based on qhes (Ofman et al., [10]). Of the ten articles reviewed, four were cost-effectiveness, two cost-utility, three description of cost, and one of cost minimization. The average overall scored 66.6 out of 100. Four of them scored below 60.0, making it a clear need for pharmacoeconomic evaluations in connection with the use of ppi for prevention and treatment of peptic ulcer, especially cost-effectiveness studies that meet standards of methodological quality.

Quality evaluations for five published meta-analyses of intravenous fish oil interventions on clinical outcomes by a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews / 中华临床营养杂志

Objective To use a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) to assess the methodological quality of published meta-analyses of intravenous fish oil interventions on clinical outcomes in postoperative or intensive care unit (ICU) patients supported with parenteral nutrition (PN).Methods PubMed,EMBASE,Cochrane Library,Web of Science,Chinese Biomedical Databases,China National Knowledge Infrastructure,Wanfang Database,and some other databases were searched to retrieve the eligible studies published from January 1996 to September 2013,and the relevant journals and the references of included studies were also retrieved manually.The studies were included if they were systematic reviews or meta-analyses that evaluated the effects of fish oil-enriched PN and standard PN for postoperative or ICU patients on clinical outcome.Two reviewers screened the literature according to the inclusion criteria and extracted the data.Then the AMSTAR was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies.Results A total of five relevant meta analyses were included.Based on AMSTAR,two studies were of high quality,one of moderate quality,and the other two were of low quality.Conclusions The methodological quality of these five published metaanalyses of intravenous fish oil interventions is uneven.Further large-scale and high-quality randomized controlled trials about the impact of intravenous fish oil on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness analysis for postoperative and ICU patients are needed.

Validación de escala MinCir de estudios de pronóstico / Methodological quality in prognostic papers (scale MinCir Pr)

Introduction: Our team reported the development of a scale for assessing methodological quality in prognostic papers (scale MinCir Pr). The aim of this paper is to report the process of validation of scale MinCir Pr. Material and Methods: We reviewed 121 papers about prognosis. Score was performed according to the scale MinCir Pr and level of evidence. In addition we recorded the number of publications of the author. For the construct validity of the measurement was made through the technique known extreme groups, which claims that the evaluations differ regarding the critical attribute. To this end, we used the level of evidence items 2 and 4, waiting for a difference in scale scores of articles published at the ends of the score. Results: For validation of extreme groups we compare the performance of the scale in relation to the level of evidence 2 and 4, since in these groups had more papers (55 and 48 respectively). The average score of the scale in papers with level of evidence 2 was 82.21 +/- 13.79 compared with the score in papers with level of evidence 4 which was 64.97 +/- 17.10 (p = 0.000). Conclusion: We performed the validity of the scale builder MinCir Pr using the technique known extreme groups.

Introducción: Nuestro equipo de trabajo reportó el desarrollo de una escala de evaluación de calidad metodológica de estudios de pronóstico (escala MinCir Pr). El objetivo del presente trabajo es reportar el proceso de validación de la escala MinCir Pr. Material y Método: Se revisaron 121 estudios de pronóstico. Se realizó la puntuación de los trabajos según la escala MinCir Pr y según el nivel de evidencia. Además se registró el número de publicaciones del autor. Para la validez de constructo se realizó la medición por medio de la técnica de grupos extremos conocidos, que presume que las evaluaciones diferirán respecto al atributo crítico. Para este fin, se utilizaron los artículos con nivel de evidencia 2 y 4, esperando una diferencia en la puntuación de la escala de los artículos publicados en los extremos de la puntuación. Resultados: Para realizar la validación de grupos extremos comparamos el desempeño de la nueva escala en relación a los niveles de evidencia 2 y 4; ya que en estos grupos había mayor número de artículos (55 y 48 respectivamente). El promedio de puntuación de la nueva escala de los trabajos con nivel de evidencia 2 fue de 82,21 +/- 13,79 en comparación con la puntuación de los trabajos con nivel de evidencia 4 que fue de 64,97 +/- 17,10 (p = 0,000). Conclusión: Se realizó la validez de constructor de la escala MinCir Pr utilizando la técnica de grupos extremos conocidos.

Diseño de una escala para evaluar calidad metodológica de estudios de pruebas diagnósticas: estudio piloto / Construction of a scale to assess methodological quality of diagnostic tests articles

Introduction: Despite the methodological quality (MQ) of scientific publications is a multidimensional concept difficult to understand, their evaluation is essential at the time of making decisions that support our clinical practice. However, in the field of diagnostic tests (DT), which is in a steady and rapid development, there are no valid and reliable instruments to assess MQ. Aim: To report the results of the generation of items and domains of a scale to determine MQ in studies of DT and to determine interobserver reliability of this scale. Material and Methods: Construction of a scale to assess MQ of DT articles and pilot study to determine interobserver reliability. Designed scale was applied to 20 DT studies randomly selected. Interobserver reliability of the scale and each of the domains that compose it was determined by applying intraclass correlation coefficient. Results: The created scale has 9 items grouped into three domains. The ICC observed was 1.0 for the domain 1, 0.90 for the domain 2 and 0.86 for the domain 3. The overall ICC was 0.96. Conclusion: A scale to determine MQ in DT studies was created and it interobserver reliability was determined with a significant level of agreement between observers.

Introducción: A pesar que la calidad metodológica (CM) de las publicaciones científicas es un concepto multidimensional de difícil comprensión, su evaluación es fundamental para la toma de decisiones que apoyen nuestra práctica clínica. No obstante ello, en el ámbito de las pruebas diagnósticas (PD), que se encuentra en constante y rápido desarrollo, no existen instrumentos válidos y confiables que permitan evaluar CM. Objetivo: Reportar los resultados del proceso de generación de ítems y dominios de una escala para determinar CM en estudios de PD; y determinar la confiabilidad interobservador de esta escala. Material y Método: Construcción de una escala de CM de estudios de PD y estudio de confiabilidad interobservador. Se aplicó la escala diseñada a 20 artículos de PD seleccionados en forma aleatoria. Se determinó confiabilidad interobservador de la escala en general y de cada uno de los dominios que la componen mediante aplicación del coeficiente de correlación intraclase. Resultados: La escala generada quedó compuesta por 9 ítems agrupados en tres dominios. El CCI observado para el dominio uno fue de 1,0; para el dominio dos de 0,90; y para el dominio tres de 0,86. El CCI general de la escala fue de 0,96. Conclusión: Se generó una escala para medir CM en estudios de PD y se determinó confiabilidad interobservador de ella y los dominios que la componen. Se observó un nivel de acuerdo significativo entre los evaluadores.