舌象仪临床应用研究的方法学及报告质量评价

目的 评价舌象仪临床应用研究的随机对照试验（RCT）、病例系列研究的方法学及报告质量。方法 检索PubMed、中国期刊全文数据库（CNKI）、维普数据库（VIP）和万方数据库（Wanfang database），从建库截至2018年12月开始检索，收集应用舌象仪观察临床疾病的RCT、病例系列研究和病例对照研究，分别参考Cochrane手册5.1.0版的偏倚风险评估工具和CONSORT 2010版的声明，对纳入的RCT研究进行方法学和报告质量进行评价；根据NICE和STROBE声明第四版进行方法学的报告质量评价研究。结果 初检出相关文献567篇，最终纳入59篇文献，包括2个RCT，57个病例系列研究。50%的RCT应用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评价后显示采用的随机分配方法比较合理，没有采用分配隐藏和盲法；均采用了意向性分析，遗憾的是并没有报告失访的情况；研究也缺乏选择性报告。NICE病例系列研究质量评价结果 病例系列研究中仅14.04%符合多中心研究；59.64%的研究纳入排除标准均不明确；数据未达到预期设定目标，未进行分层分析结局。CONSORT声明2010版评价结果显示：纳入的文献均不能从题目辨别出是否是随机临床试验，多项条目报告率为0；应用STROBE声明评价后结果显示：纳入的病例系列研究均未在题目中明确标明是病例系列研究，多项条目报告率为0。结论 舌象仪临床应用的RCT和病例系列研究报告质量不高，建议在设计和报告临床病例对照和随机对照试验时分别参考CONSORT声明、STROBE声明，纠正目前研究存在的方法学问题，进一步提高临床研究质量，增强舌象仪临床应用于疾病效用证据的强度，推进中医的客观化和现代化。     

中医手法治疗颈型颈椎病随机对照试验的质量评价研究

背景 中医手法是治疗颈型颈椎病的重要手段。随着研究的不断发展，大量中医手法治疗颈型颈椎病的随机对照试验已经发表，但质量水平参差不齐，限制了中医手法的推广和高质量临床证据的产生。 目的 评价目前中医手法治疗颈型颈椎病随机对照试验的文献质量。 方法 计算机检索中国知网、万方数据知识服务平台、维普网、中国生物医学文献服务系统、PubMed、Embase和Cochrane Library数据库中手法治疗颈型颈椎病的随机对照试验，检索时限为建库至2021年6月。由2名研究者完成文献筛选和资料提取。采用物理治疗证据数据库（PEDro）量表、Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具、临床试验报告标准（CONSORT）声明2010版及附加指标评价纳入文献的质量。 结果 共纳入81篇文献，其中2006—2014年共发表文献28篇，年平均发表3.11篇；2015—2021年共发表文献53篇，年平均发表7.57篇。文献质量评价结果显示，PEDro量表总分≥7分的高质量文献仅7篇（8.6%）。Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具显示，高偏倚风险文献所占比例最少，低偏倚风险文献次之，大部分条目因为报告信息不全，评分偏倚风险不确定。CONSORT声明2010版评价结果显示，纳入文献的文题和摘要、方法、结果、讨论、其他信息部分报告率不足。附加指标中采用多中心、伦理审批、干预措施质量控制、志谢报告率低。 结论 目前中医手法治疗颈型颈椎病随机对照试验的文献质量普遍偏低，建议今后研究者参照PEDro量表、Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具、CONSORT声明对中医手法治疗颈型颈椎病的随机对照试验进行规范性报告。     

不良反应CONSORT声明扩展版中文译文的评论

我非常喜悦与荣幸地看到,不良反应CONSORT声明扩展版被译为中文并在<中国循证医学杂志>上发表[1].中国对全球科学研究,尤其是医学研究的贡献正以迅猛的速度扩大和发展.两三年前我第一次惊喜地发现,中文生物医学期刊数量已同PubMed收录的大部分英文期刊总量不相上下.     

The Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in Orthodontics

ObjectivesAccurate trial reporting facilitates evaluation and better use of study results. The objective of this article is to investigate the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in leading orthodontic journals, and to explore potential predictors of improved reporting.MethodsThe 50 most recent issues of 4 leading orthodontic journals until November 2013 were electronically searched. Reporting quality assessment was conducted using the modified CONSORT statement checklist. The relationship between potential predictors and the modified CONSORT score was assessed using linear regression modeling.Results128 RCTs were identified with a mean modified CONSORT score of 68.97% (SD = 11.09). The Journal of Orthodontics (JO) ranked first in terms of completeness of reporting (modified CONSORT score 76.21%, SD = 10.1), followed by American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO) (73.05%, SD = 10.1). Journal of publication (AJODO: β = 10.08, 95% CI: 5.78, 14.38; JO: β = 16.82, 95% CI: 11.70, 21.94; EJO: β = 7.21, 95% CI: 2.69, 11.72 compared to Angle), year of publication (β = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.28, 1.67 for each additional year), region of authorship (Europe: β = 5.19, 95% CI: 1.30, 9.09 compared to Asia/other), statistical significance (significant: β = 3.10, 95% CI: 0.11, 6.10 compared to non-significant) and methodologist involvement (involvement: β = 5.60, 95% CI: 1.66, 9.54 compared to non-involvement) were all significant predictors of improved modified CONSORT scores in the multivariable model. Additionally, median overall Jadad score was 2 (IQR = 2) across journals, with JO (median = 3, IQR = 1) and AJODO (median = 3, IQR = 2) presenting the highest score values.ConclusionThe reporting quality of RCTs published in leading orthodontic journals is considered suboptimal in various CONSORT areas. This may have a bearing in trial result interpretation and use in clinical decision making and evidence- based orthodontic treatment interventions.     

The accuracy of diagnostic tests for adenoid hypertrophy: A systematic review

BackgroundAdenoid hypertrophy may cause sleep-disordered breathing and altered craniofacial growth. The authors conducted a study to gauge the accuracy of alternative tests compared with nasoendoscopy (reference standard) for screening adenoid hypertrophy.MethodsThe authors conducted a systematic review that included searches of electronic databases, hand searches of bibliographies of relevant articles and gray literature searches. They included all articles in which an alternative test was compared with nasoendoscopy in children with suspected nasal or nasopharyngeal airway obstruction.ResultsThe authors identified seven articles that were of poor to good quality. They identified the following alternative tests: multirow detector computed tomography (sensitivity, 92 percent; specificity, 97 percent), videofluoroscopy (sensitivity, 100 percent; specificity, 90 percent), rhinomanometry with decongestant (sensitivity, 83 percent; specificity, 83 percent) and clinical examination (sensitivity, 22 percent; specificity, 88 percent). Lateral cephalograms tended to have good to fair sensitivity (typically 61-75 percent) and poor specificity (41-55 percent) when adenoid size was evaluated but excellent to good specificity when airway patency was evaluated (68-96 percent).ConclusionsNo ideal tool exists for dentists to screen adenoid hypertrophy, owing to access constraints, radiation concerns and suboptimal diagnostic accuracy. Research is needed to identify a low-risk, easily acceptable, highly valid diagnostic screening tool.Practical ImplicationsAlthough lateral cephalograms (which have good to fair sensitivity) and a thorough medical history (which has good specificity) are imperfect individually, when they are used together, they can compensate for each other's weaknesses. This combined approach is the best tool available to dentists for screening adenoid hypertrophy.     

Compliance to the CONSORT statement of randomized controlled trials in solid organ transplantation: a 3‐year overview

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to improve the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our primary aim was to assess to what extent reports of RCTs in solid organ transplantation adhere to the 2010 CONSORT statement. Secondly, we investigated the relationship between CONSORT adherence, methodological quality and some other factors. We included 290 RCTs that were published between 2007 and 2009. We examined to what extent trial reports complied with 30 items of the CONSORT statement. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Jadad scale plus allocation concealment and whether data analysis was by randomized group (intention to treat). On average, trial reports addressed 47% of the CONSORT items. Forty‐three per cent of RCTs was considered to be of good quality according to Jadad scale, and the items allocation concealment and data analysis were satisfied in approximately one‐third of trials. Good quality RCTs reported on more CONSORT items than poor quality trials. The methodological quality and adherence to the CONSORT statement of RCTs published in journals that endorse the CONSORT statement was superior to those in journals without CONSORT endorsement. Overall compliance with the CONSORT statement and the methodological quality of RCTs in organ transplantation remains unsatisfactory.