Avalia&ccedil;&atilde;o da qualidade dos ensaios cl&iacute;nicos aleat&oacute;rios em terapia intensiva <span class="so-article-trans-title"> Translated title: Quality assessment of randomized clinical trial in intensive care </span>

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

OBJETIVO: O ensaio clínico aleatório é um estudo prospectivo que compara o efeito e o valor das intervenções em seres humanos, utilizando um ou mais grupos contra o grupo controle. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a qualidade dos ensaios clínicos aleatórios publicados em terapia intensiva no Brasil. MÉTODOS: Todos os ensaios clínicos aleatórios encontrados através da busca manual na Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva de janeiro de 2001 a março de 2008 foram analisados para avaliar sua descrição através da escala de qualidade. Foi utilizada uma estatística descritiva e intervalo de confiança de 95% para a variável primária. A variável primária foi a qualidade dos ensaios clínicos aleatórios. RESULTADOS: Foram encontrados 185 artigos originais, sendo 14 de ensaios clínicos aleatórios. Apenas um artigo original analisado (7,1%) mostrou-se de boa qualidade. Não houve significância estatística entre os dados coletados e os dados mostrados na hipótese desta pesquisa. CONCLUSÃO: Pode-se concluir que na amostra de artigos avaliada 7% dos ensaios clínicos aleatórios em terapia intensiva publicados em uma revista no Brasil são de boa qualidade metodológica.

Translated abstract

OBJECTIVE: A randomized clinical trial is a prospective study that compares the effect and value of interventions in human beings, of one or more groups vs. a control group. The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of published randomized clinical trials in Intensive care in Brazil. METHODS: All randomized clinical trials in intensive care found by manual search in Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva from January 2001 to March 2008 were assessed to evaluate their description by the quality scale. Descriptive statistics and a 95 % confidence interval were used for the primary outcome. Our primary outcome was the randomized clinical trial quality. RESULTS: Our search found 185 original articles, of which 14 were randomized clinical trials. Only one original article (7.1%) showed good quality. There was no statistical significance between the collected data and the data shown in the hypothesis of this search. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that in the sample of assessed articles 7% of the randomized clinical trials in intensive care published in a single intensive care journal in Brazil, present good methodological quality.

Related collections

Most cited references 33

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?

A. Jadad, R Moore, D. Carroll … (1996)

It has been suggested that the quality of clinical trials should be assessed by blinded raters to limit the risk of introducing bias into meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and into the peer-review process. There is very little evidence in the literature to substantiate this. This study describes the development of an instrument to assess the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in pain research and its use to determine the effect of rater blinding on the assessments of quality. A multidisciplinary panel of six judges produced an initial version of the instrument. Fourteen raters from three different backgrounds assessed the quality of 36 research reports in pain research, selected from three different samples. Seven were allocated randomly to perform the assessments under blind conditions. The final version of the instrument included three items. These items were scored consistently by all the raters regardless of background and could discriminate between reports from the different samples. Blind assessments produced significantly lower and more consistent scores than open assessments. The implications of this finding for systematic reviews, meta-analytic research and the peer-review process are discussed.

0 comments Cited 1123 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.

K Schulz, I. Chalmers, R Hayes … (1995)

To determine if inadequate approaches to randomized controlled trial design and execution are associated with evidence of bias in estimating treatment effects. An observational study in which we assessed the methodological quality of 250 controlled trials from 33 meta-analyses and then analyzed, using multiple logistic regression models, the associations between those assessments and estimated treatment effects. Meta-analyses from the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Database. The associations between estimates of treatment effects and inadequate allocation concealment, exclusions after randomization, and lack of double-blinding. Compared with trials in which authors reported adequately concealed treatment allocation, trials in which concealment was either inadequate or unclear (did not report or incompletely reported a concealment approach) yielded larger estimates of treatment effects (P < .001). Odds ratios were exaggerated by 41% for inadequately concealed trials and by 30% for unclearly concealed trials (adjusted for other aspects of quality). Trials in which participants had been excluded after randomization did not yield larger estimates of effects, but that lack of association may be due to incomplete reporting. Trials that were not double-blind also yielded larger estimates of effects (P = .01), with odds ratios being exaggerated by 17%. This study provides empirical evidence that inadequate methodological approaches in controlled trials, particularly those representing poor allocation concealment, are associated with bias. Readers of trial reports should be wary of these pitfalls, and investigators must improve their design, execution, and reporting of trials.