Examining trends in the evidence base for the treatment of burns and a quality assessment of randomised controlled trials over an 11-year period |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Burn Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China;2. Research Unit of Key Techniques for Treatment of Burns and Combined Burns and Trauma Injury, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shanghai 200433, People’s Republic of China;3. Department of Burns and Plastic Surgery, General Hospital of Central Theater Command of Chinese People''s Liberation Army, Wuhan 430070, People’s Republic of China;4. Department of Medical Imaging, The First Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, Shanghai 200433, People’s Republic of China;5. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Naval Medical Center of PLA, Naval Medical University, Shanghai 200052, People’s Republic of China;1. Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, HU3 2JZ, UK;2. Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead RH19 3DZ, UK;1. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Temple University Hospital and Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA;2. Catalyst Medical Consulting, 722 Elmbrook Drive, Simpsonville, SC 29681, USA;3. Department of Internal Medicine, Prisma Health Midlands, 5 Medical Park Road, Columbia, SC 29203, USA;4. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Prisma Health Midlands, 5 Medical Park Road, Columbia, SC 29203, USA;5. Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Prisma Health Midlands, 5 Medical Park Road, Columbia, SC 29203, USA;6. Department of Anesthesia & Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, 4940 Eastern Ave, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA;7. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University Medical Center, Burn Unit, Bayview Campus, 4940 Eastern Ave, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA;1. Burn and Regenerative Medicine Research Center, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran;2. Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran;3. Department of Medical-Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran;4. Research Centre for Health Information Management, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran;5. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Community, and Education, Mount Royal University, Calgary, AB, Canada;6. Department of Medical-Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran;7. Guchan School of Nursing, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.;1. Department of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Marienhospital Stuttgart, Boeheimstrasse 37, 70199 Stuttgart, Germany;2. Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Stuttgart Burn Center, Marienhospital Stuttgart, Boeheimstrasse 37, 70199 Stuttgart, Germany;3. Clinic for Aneasthesiology, Department of Emergency Medicine, University Hospital Ulm Medical Center, Prittwitzstrasse 43, 89075 Ulm, Germany;4. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Marienhospital Stuttgart, Boeheimstrasse 37, 70199 Stuttgart, Germany |
| |
| Abstract: | BackgroundPrevious articles assessed the evidence-base for the treatment of burns, but the latest was published in 2010, examining data up to and inclusive of 2008. The aim of this article is to examine the trend in the number of high-evidence publications over the subsequent 11-year period and quality-assess RCTs within this timeframe.Materials and methodsAll articles published in Burns and Journal of Burn Care and Research (JBCR) were identified using PubMed Search Tools and its Single Citation Matcher function. These journals were manually screened from 01/01/2009–01/06/2020 inclusive. Additionally, a PubMed search was conducted searching for RCTs and meta-analyses in English with the MESH term burns to identify meta-analyses and RCTs in all other journals. The reporting of RCTs was assessed using a modified CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist.ResultsA total of 5145 articles were evaluated from Burns and JBCR, with 3230 (62.78%) from Burns and 1915 (37.22%) from JBCR. 0.012% were meta-analyses of RCTs, 0.30% were other meta-analyses, and 2.52% were initially identified as RCTs. Whilst a significant increase in the number of high-evidence publications is observed, these represent 2.83% (n = 237) of the total. An additional 95 RCTs were identified in other journals, 58 being included in quality-analysis. A total 128 RCTs were thus eligible for quality-assessment, the most popular individual topic being wound healing (n = 28; 21.88%). The most highly reported criterion was listed inclusion and exclusion criteria (n = 111; 86.72%) and the least reported criterion was allocation concealment (n = 22; 13.92%).ConclusionsThis study observes a positive trend in high-evidence publications. The reporting of several CONSORT criteria in RCTs remains poor. Observation to standard reporting guidelines is advocated to improve the quality of reporting. |
| |
| Keywords: | Burns Bibliometrics Evidence-based medicine Humans Trends Publishing standards Randomized controlled trials RCT"} {"#name":"keyword" "$":{"id":"key0010"} "$$":[{"#name":"text" "_":"randomised controlled trial JBCR"} {"#name":"keyword" "$":{"id":"key0020"} "$$":[{"#name":"text" "_":"Journal of Burn Care and Research |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
