全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of reports of clinical trials published in six Brazilian dental journals indexed in the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO)

DOI: 10.1590/S1678-77572010000200002

Keywords: clinical trials as topic, randomized controlled trials as topic, evidence-based medicine, bias, journalism [dental].

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

introduction: open access publishing is becoming increasingly popular within the biomedical sciences. scielo, the scientific electronic library online, is a digital library covering a selected collection of brazilian scientific journals many of which provide open access to full-text articles.this library includes a number of dental journals some of which may include reports of clinical trials in english, portuguese and/or spanish. thus, scielo could play an important role as a source of evidence for dental healthcare interventions especially if it yields a sizeable number of high quality reports. objective: the aim of this study was to identify reports of clinical trials by handsearching of dental journals that are accessible through scielo, and to assess the overall quality of these reports. material and methods: electronic versions of six brazilian dental journals indexed in scielo were handsearched at www.scielo.br in september 2008. reports of clinical trials were identified and classified as controlled clinical trials (ccts - prospective, experimental studies comparing 2 or more healthcare interventions in human beings) or randomized controlled trials (rcts - a random allocation method is clearly reported), according to cochrane eligibility criteria. criteria to assess methodological quality included: method of randomization, concealment of treatment allocation, blinded outcome assessment, handling of withdrawals and losses and whether an intention-to-treat analysis had been carried out. results: the search retrieved 33 ccts and 43 rcts. a majority of the reports provided no description of either the method of randomization (75.3%) or concealment of the allocation sequence (84.2%). participants and outcome assessors were reported as blinded in only 31.2% of the reports. withdrawals and losses were only clearly described in 6.5% of the reports and none mentioned an intention-to-treat analysis or any similar procedure. conclusions: the results of this study indic

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133