| Title | THE USE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS IN RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS IN ANESTHESIOLOGY |
| Author | Anja Engelking |
| Mentor(s) | Livia Puljak (thesis advisor)
|
| Abstract | Objectives: Systematic reviews (SRs) summarize current knowledge on a certain clinical question. To avoid research waste, new randomized clinical trials (RCTs) should be initiated if previous SRs indicate that there is no such evidence or that there is insufficient evidence from previous RCTs. The objective of this study was to analyze whether previous SRs are mentioned in RCTs published in anesthesiology journals as a rationale for conducting the RCT and for discussing the results.
Methods: This was a meta-epidemiological, descriptive cross-sectional study. We analyzed RCTs published in the seven first-quartile journals from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) category Anesthesiology between 2014 and 2016. We studied text and bibliography of the RCTs to assess whether the authors made a reference to previous SRs when justifying the need for their own clinical trial and discussing the results.
Results: Almost half of the included RCTs (44%) did not mention a single systematic review, either in text explicitly or as a reference. Around 10% of the included RCTs mentioned a previous systematic review as a justification for conducting a trial. Between 2014 and 2016 we noted no significant difference in the number of SRs mentioned as a justification in introduction or discussion but the total number of SRs mentioned increased significantly (F= 3.73, P= 0.035).
Conclusions: Although an increase of total mentions of systematic reviews was observed, the percentage of articles that actually used them to justify their trials did not change significantly. |
| Parallel title (Croatian) | UPORABA SUSTAVNIH PREGLEDA U RANDOMIZIRANIM KONTROLIRANIM POKUSIMA IZ ANESTEZIOLOGIJE |
| Committee Members | Joško Božić (committee chairperson)
Mihajlo Lojpur (committee member)
Iris Jerončić Tomić (committee member)
|
| Granter | University of Split
School of Medicine |
| Lower level organizational units | Anatomy |
| Place | Split |
| State | Croatia |
| Scientific field, discipline, subdiscipline | BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTHCARE
Clinical Medical Sciences
Anesthesiology and Reanimatology
|
| Study programme type | university |
| Study level | integrated undergraduate and graduate |
| Study programme | Medical Studies in English |
| Academic title abbreviation | dr. med. |
| Genre | master's thesis |
| Language | English |
| Defense date | 2017-07-24 |
| Parallel abstract (Croatian) | Ciljevi: Sustavni pregledi sažimaju trenutno znanje o pojedinim kliničkim pitanjima. Kako bi se izbjeglo razbacivanje istraživačkim resursima novi randomizirani klinički pokusi trebali bi se provoditi samo ako raniji sustavni pregledi pokazuju da nema dovoljno takvih dokaza ili da ranije provedeni klinički pokusi ne sadrže dostatne dokaze. Cilj ovog istraživanja bio je analizirati spominju li se raniji sustavni pregledi u radovima koji opisuju kliničke pokuse kao opravdanje za provedbu tog pokusa i za diskutiranje rezultata.
Metode: Provedeno je metodološko presječno istraživanje. Analizirani su randomizirani klinički pokusi objavljeni od 2014. do 2016. u sedam časopisa iz prve kvartile u Journal Citation Reports (JCR) kategoriji iz područja anesteziologije. Analiziran je tekst i bibliografija kliničkog pokusa kako bi se utvrdilo spominju li se sustavni pregledi eksplicitno ili samo kao referenca, i spominju li se kao razlog zašto je potreban novi klinički pokus.
Rezultati: Gotovo polovina uključenih kliničkih pokusa (44%) nije citirala niti jedan sustavni pregled, ili eksplicitno u tekstu ili kao referencu. Samo 13% analiziranih kliničkih pokusa spomenulo je raniji sustavni pregled kao opravdanje za provedbu pokusa u uvodu, 0,03% u metodama i 9,6% u raspravi. Između 2014. i 2016. godine nije uočeno značajno povećanje spominjanja sustavnih pregleda kao opravdanja za korištenje kliničkog pokusa, ali je uočeno značajno povećanje broja citiranih sustavnih pregleda (F= 3.73, P= 0.035).
Zaključak: Iako je uočeno povećanje broja citiranih sustavnih pregleda u analiziranom razdoblju, postotak kliničkih pokusa koji koriste te sustavne preglede kao opravdanje za provedbu kliničkog pokusa još uvijek je vrlo nizak. Nužno je provesti intervencije koje će povećati svijest autora kliničkih pokusa o potrebi provedbe kliničkog pokusa jedino ako ta potreba zaista postoji temeljem ranije sinteze literature, a isto tako o potrebi citiranja sinteze literature na kojoj se potreba za novim kliničkim pokusom temelji. |
| Parallel keywords (Croatian) | Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Review Literature as Topic Pain Anesthesiology Randomizirani kontrolirani pokusi kao tema Pregled literature kao tema Bol Anesteziologija |
| Resource type | text |
| Access condition | Open access |
| Terms of use |  |
| URN:NBN | https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:171:609953 |
