Deficiencies in reporting inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients in randomized controlled trials of therapeutic interventions in pressure injuries: a systematic methodological review

Author:

Miranda Jéssica Steffany1ORCID,Abbade Luciana P. F.2,Abbade Joelcio Francisco3,Thabane Lehana4,Mbuagbaw Lawrence4,Pascon Gisele Chicone1,Campanili Ticiane Carolina Gonçalves Faustino1,Santos Larissa Paula1,de Gouveia Santos Vera Lúcia Conceição1

Affiliation:

1. Research Group in Enterostomal Therapy: stomas, acute and chronic wounds and urinary and anal incontinences. School of Nursing University of São Paulo São Paulo Brazil

2. Department of Dermatology and Radiotherapy São Paulo State University Julio de Mesquita Filho ‐ Faculty of Medicine, Botucatu Campus São Paulo Brazil

3. Department of f Gynecology and Obstetrics São Paulo State University Julio de Mesquita Filho ‐ Faculty of Medicine, Botucatu Campus São Paulo Brazil

4. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact (HEI) McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada

Abstract

AbstractWound care is a complex procedure and the related research may include many variables. Deficiencies in the sample inclusion and exclusion criteria may limit the generalizability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for wound patients in the real world. This study aimed to evaluate deficiencies in reporting the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the characteristics of patients in RCTs of pressure injuries (PI) therapeutic interventions. We conducted a systematic methodological review in which 40 full text RCTs of PI treatment interventions published in English, from 2008 to 2020, were identified. Data on the general characteristics of the included RCTs and data about inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients were collected. The inclusion/exclusion criteria were categorized into five domains (definition of disease, precision, safety, ethical/legal and administrative). Study duration (in weeks) was 8.0 (quartile 1: 2.0; quartile 3: 48.0); only 5.0% of the trials mentioned race, skin colour or ethnicity, and 37.5% reported the duration of the wound. Only 9 (22.5%) studies reported the drugs that the included patients were using and 10 (25.0%) RCTs reported adverse events. The presence of the five domains was observed only in 12.5% of RCTs and only 12 (30.0%) had the precision domain. Much more research is required in systematic assessments of the external validity of trials because there is substantial disparity between the information that is provided by RCTs and the information that is required by clinicians. We concluded that there are deficiencies in reporting of data related to inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients of RCTs assessing PI therapeutic interventions.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Dermatology,Surgery

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3