Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Montrer: 20 | 50 | 100
Résultats 1 - 7 de 7
Filtre
1.
Journal of Jilin University(Medicine Edition) ; (6): 762-769, 2017.
Article Dans Chinois | WPRIM | ID: wpr-616917

Résumé

Objective:To systematically review the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in procedural sedation. Methods: PubMed,EMBase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,CBM and WanFang databases were retrieved to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCT) about comparion of efficacy and safety between dexmedetomidine and midazolam in procedural sedation up to March, 2017. Based on the inclusion criteria, the data extraction and quality evaluation were performed, and then the systematic evaluation was carried out.The outcome measures for efficacy were the satisfaction scores and pain scores of the patients and clinicians;the outcome measures for safety comparison were hypotension, hypoxia, and circulatory and respiratory complications.Results:There were 14 RCT satisfied the inclusion criteria including 949 patients.Compared with midazolam group, the incidence of pain, delirium, and analgesia of the patients in dexmedetomidine group had significant differences (P0.05).Conclusion:When the adult patients are sedated, dexmedetomidine can be used as an ideal alternative to midazolam sedation.

2.
Chinese Journal of Practical Nursing ; (36): 1331-1333, 2015.
Article Dans Chinois | WPRIM | ID: wpr-470115

Résumé

Objective To assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of delirium prevention of elderly published in China.Methods The literatures from China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI),WANFANG Data and VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals were evaluated according to Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias and Jadad scale.Results A total of 53 RCTs were included,14 (26.4%,14/53) described radom number table used to generate the random allocation sequence,4 (7.5%,4/53) conducted experiments in a blinded manner,7 (13.2%,7/53) did not use intentionto-treat to analyse those who did not complete the study,9 (17.0%,9/53) had high risk of other bias,none described allocation concealment mechanism and blinding to participants and intercention implementers.Based on Jadad scales,the score was 1-4,average score was (2.3±0.8),19 (35.8%,19/53) were high-quality literatures.Conclusions The quality of present published literatures is not high,the further domestic studies should be designed high-quality to better improve clinical practice.

3.
Br J Med Med Res ; 2015; 10(9): 1-18
Article Dans Anglais | IMSEAR | ID: sea-181819

Résumé

Skull base surgery has experienced dramatic advances in the last decade. Recently, various surgical disciplines have conducted reviews of quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This is the first review to our knowledge regarding RCT quality within skull base surgery. Systematic review of skull base surgery RCTs published between 2000 and 2014 were conducted. Literature search provided 96 papers. Duplicates and trials which did not meet our inclusion criteria were excluded. This left 28 papers for analysis. A total of 1785 patients participated across trials. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement (CONSORT) and Jadad scale were used assess to the quality of reporting. These were our main outcome measures. The mean CONSORT score prior to 2011 was 16.9 (n = 17, range; 13 – 22), and post 2011 was 17.5 (n = 11, range; 12 – 22). The mean Jadad score was 3.1 (n = 28, range 2 – 5). CONSORT were found to increase significantly with both increasing sample size (rho=0.467, p=0.012) and Jadad scores (rho=0.540, p=0.003). Linear regression showed CONSORT increase by 0.36 (95% CI: 0.02 – 0.70, p=0.041) for each additional 10 patients included, and by 1.50 (95% CI: 0.58 – 0.24, p=0.002) for each increase of one in the JADAD score. There are common omissions related to randomization, sample size calculations and availability of protocols. RCTs in skull base surgery are comparable to other surgical disciplines. We recommend utilisation of the CONSORT statement during protocol formation of RCTs to improve reporting of trials.

4.
Chinese Journal of Information on Traditional Chinese Medicine ; (12): 17-21, 2014.
Article Dans Chinois | WPRIM | ID: wpr-444040

Résumé

Objective To investigate the current situation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in stationary phase with point application, and provide evidence for clinical practice. Methods Such databases as CNKI, VIP, and CBM were searched from the establishment date to October 2011 to collect the RCTs on the treatment of COPD in stationary phase with point application according to the predefined inclusion criteria. And the quality was assessed by using the Jadad scale, the revised CONSORT statement and other self-defined indexes. Results Among 32 included RCTs, 1 literature scored three points, 8 scored two points, 23 scored one point according to Jadad scale, and no RCT performed the allocation concealment. According to the CONSORT criteria, only one can be prompted randomized trials from the title of the article, 23 from abstracts, 2 literature showed how to determine the sample size, 7 described the method to generate random allocation sequence, only 1 literature mentioned blind method, 15 literature explicitly mentioned syndromes. Conclusion Currently, the methodology and reporting quality of studies on the treatment of COPD in stationary phase with point application are not good enough to provide reliable evidence for clinical practice, and we should improve the quality of our clinical research.

5.
Chinese Journal of Clinical Nutrition ; (6): 1-6, 2011.
Article Dans Chinois | WPRIM | ID: wpr-412488

Résumé

Objective and fair clinical trials are the main methods for assessing the clinical significances of the experimental findings. The development of translational medicine highly relies on high-quality clinical trials as well as trial reports. Although the definition of"quality of clinical trials"and"quality of trial reports"differs from each other, they are closely related and can be consistent in most circumstance in the context of"scientific integrity". The quality of trial reports can be basically assessed by their internal and external properties. The quality of a randomized trial can be assessed by Jadad scale and Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias, and the quality of a non-randomized trial by risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale. However, since Jadad scale lacks appropriate appraisal of allocation concealment and is too simple in evaluating blind method, assessment of allocation concealment should be added. A more widely accepted approach for assessing the quality of random trials is the combination of Jadad scale and Schulz's approach to allocation concealment till recent years.For non-randomized cohort studies and case-control studies, Newcastle-Ottawa scale might be suitable at present time.

6.
Journal of the Korean Medical Association ; : 419-429, 2011.
Article Dans Coréen | WPRIM | ID: wpr-11171

Résumé

Tools for assessing methodological quality or risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS) were reviewed. The van Tulder scale and Cochrane's assessment of risk of bias are the two most useful methodological quality evaluation tools for RCTs. Cochrane's tool includes sequence generation, allocation of sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other potential sources of bias. The Cochrane Collaboration Group recommends the Downs and Black instrument and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for evaluating the quality of NRS. In conclusion, this study offers useful information to physicians about tools for assessing the quality of evidence in clinical guidelines. Further research is needed to provide an essential core for evidence-based decision making regarding levels and/or grades of recommendations.


Sujets)
Biais (épidémiologie) , Comportement coopératif , Prise de décision
7.
Chinese Journal of Clinical Nutrition ; (6): 321-323, 2009.
Article Dans Chinois | WPRIM | ID: wpr-391684

Résumé

Objective To evaluate the quality of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in two key Chineze journals on clinical nutrition.Methods The articles published in CHINESE JOURNAL OF CLIN-ICAL NUTRlTION and PARENTERAL & ENTERAL NUTRITION from 2000 to 2008 were reviewed and the RCTs were identified according to criteria of the handbook of Cochrane Collaboration.The Jadad scale was used to evalu-ate the quality of these RCTs.Results Totally 238 RCT articles were published in these two journals in this peri-od.The Jadad score of all RCT articles was 1.65±0.82.Twenty-eight articles (11.76%) were of high quality and only 5 articles (2.10%) were identified 5 points.There were some problems in the RCTs design,conduction and analyses included unclear randomization methods,poor comparison,lack of inclusion and exclusion criteria.less blinding employment,unclear withdrawals and dropouts,and improper sample size.Conclusion The design and quality control of Chinese clinical nutrition RCTs still have some problems and require further improvement.

SÉLECTION CITATIONS
Détails de la recherche