14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Quality of evidence in a post-Soviet country: evaluation of methodological quality of controlled clinical trials published in national journals from Uzbekistan

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Background

          Most researchers in Uzbekistan prefer to publish their reports in journals of their home country. Moreover, the proportion of healthcare practitioners who prefer to use these national sources of information also remains high. However, the quality of publications from national journals, in post-Soviet countries, has not been systematically evaluated until now. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials’ (RCTs) reports published in medical journals from Uzbekistan. We supposed that reports had at least minimal quality to contribute to the higher quality of healthcare.

          Methods

          To evaluate the quality of RCTs, we selected two journals from the list of national medical journals for which background information was provided. We decided to select articles from journals that had the highest subscription rate and were likely to have the highest impact on clinical decisions. The journals were Medical Journal of Uzbekistan and Paediatrics. Only issues published in 2007–2017 were considered for evaluation. Two evaluators independently scored RCTs and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) reported in the journals. The 5-point scale developed by Jadad et al. was used to evaluate the quality of reports. Consensus-based decision was made about the final score of each report.

          Results

          We reviewed 1311 studies in the two journals and found 380 clinical trials reports for the final evaluation. Our main finding was that none of the reports received a final score of more than 1, with an absolute agreement between evaluators. A median score of the studied reports was equal to 0, predicting a very low quality of controlled trials reported in the national journals (Wilcoxon signed-rank test p = 1.0; 95% CI = 0–0).

          Conclusions

          We believe that quality of reports about controlled trials, in Uzbekistan, can be considered insufficient to contribute to the higher quality of care and patients’ safety. In the worst case, such condition can cause serious damage to the public health and lead to ineffective use of resources in the country. Therefore, the better reporting and organization of RCTs and CCTs should become a main goal of all stakeholders interested in the effective and safe healthcare in the country.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Interrater agreement and interrater reliability: key concepts, approaches, and applications.

          Evaluations of interrater agreement and interrater reliability can be applied to a number of different contexts and are frequently encountered in social and administrative pharmacy research. The objectives of this study were to highlight key differences between interrater agreement and interrater reliability; describe the key concepts and approaches to evaluating interrater agreement and interrater reliability; and provide examples of their applications to research in the field of social and administrative pharmacy. This is a descriptive review of interrater agreement and interrater reliability indices. It outlines the practical applications and interpretation of these indices in social and administrative pharmacy research. Interrater agreement indices assess the extent to which the responses of 2 or more independent raters are concordant. Interrater reliability indices assess the extent to which raters consistently distinguish between different responses. A number of indices exist, and some common examples include Kappa, the Kendall coefficient of concordance, Bland-Altman plots, and the intraclass correlation coefficient. Guidance on the selection of an appropriate index is provided. In conclusion, selection of an appropriate index to evaluate interrater agreement or interrater reliability is dependent on a number of factors including the context in which the study is being undertaken, the type of variable under consideration, and the number of raters making assessments. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the Jadad scale.

            An instrument was developed and validated by Jadad, et al. to assess the quality of clinical trials using studies from the pain literature. Our study determined the reliability of the Jadad scale and the effect of blinding on interrater agreement in another group of primary studies. Four raters independently assessed blinded and unblinded versions of 76 randomized trials. Interrater agreement was calculated among combinations of four raters for blinded and unblinded versions of the studies. A 4 x 2 x 2 repeated measures design was employed to evaluate the effect of blinding. The interrater agreement for the Jadad scale was poor (kappa 0.37 to 0.39), but agreement improved substantially (kappa 0.53 to 0.59) with removal of the third item (an explanation of withdrawals). Blinding did not significantly affect the Jadad scale scores. A more precise description of how to score the withdrawal item and careful conduct of a practice set of articles might improve interrater agreement. In contrast with the conclusions reached by Jadad, we were unable to demonstrate a significant effect of blinding on the quality scores.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Update on the endorsement of CONSORT by high impact factor journals: a survey of journal “Instructions to Authors” in 2014

              Background The CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement provides a minimum standard set of items to be reported in published clinical trials; it has received widespread recognition within the biomedical publishing community. This research aims to provide an update on the endorsement of CONSORT by high impact medical journals. Methods We performed a cross-sectional examination of the online “Instructions to Authors” of 168 high impact factor (2012) biomedical journals between July and December 2014. We assessed whether the text of the “Instructions to Authors” mentioned the CONSORT Statement and any CONSORT extensions, and we quantified the extent and nature of the journals’ endorsements of these. These data were described by frequencies. We also determined whether journals mentioned trial registration and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE; other than in regards to trial registration) and whether either of these was associated with CONSORT endorsement (relative risk and 95 % confidence interval). We compared our findings to the two previous iterations of this survey (in 2003 and 2007). We also identified the publishers of the included journals. Results Sixty-three percent (106/168) of the included journals mentioned CONSORT in their “Instructions to Authors.” Forty-four endorsers (42 %) explicitly stated that authors “must” use CONSORT to prepare their trial manuscript, 38 % required an accompanying completed CONSORT checklist as a condition of submission, and 39 % explicitly requested the inclusion of a flow diagram with the submission. CONSORT extensions were endorsed by very few journals. One hundred and thirty journals (77 %) mentioned ICMJE, and 106 (63 %) mentioned trial registration. Conclusions The endorsement of CONSORT by high impact journals has increased over time; however, specific instructions on how CONSORT should be used by authors are inconsistent across journals and publishers. Publishers and journals should encourage authors to use CONSORT and set clear expectations for authors about compliance with CONSORT.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                timur_aripov@yahoo.com , timur_aripov@tipme.uz
                Journal
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Medical Research Methodology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2288
                13 July 2020
                13 July 2020
                2020
                : 20
                : 189
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.430874.c, ISNI 0000 0004 7379 9861, Department of Public Health and Healthcare Management, , Tashkent Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education, ; Parkentskaya str. 51, Tashkent, Uzbekistan 100007
                [2 ]GRID grid.430874.c, ISNI 0000 0004 7379 9861, Principal investigator at Antimicrobial Resistance Research project, , Tashkent Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education, ; Parkentskaya str. 51, Tashkent, Uzbekistan 100007
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2548-9888
                Article
                1076
                10.1186/s12874-020-01076-x
                7359460
                32660442
                58902bc3-c6ba-4243-a750-3b541ba28d26
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 10 January 2020
                : 7 July 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000061, Fogarty International Center;
                Award ID: D43TW011237
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Medicine
                public health,evidence-based medicine,healthcare quality,randomized controlled trial,uzbekistan

                Comments

                Comment on this article