Literature DB >> 23937172

Fundamentals of randomized clinical trials in wound care: reporting standards.

Fleur E Brölmann1, Anne M Eskes, Bauer E Sumpio, Dieter O Mayer, Zena Moore, Magnus S Agren, Michel Hermans, Keith Cutting, Dink A Legemate, Hester Vermeulen, Dirk T Ubbink.   

Abstract

In wound care research, available high-level evidence according to the evidence pyramid is rare, and is threatened by a poor study design and reporting. Without comprehensive and transparent reporting, readers will not be able to assess the strengths and limitations of the research performed. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are universally acknowledged as the study design of choice for comparing treatment effects. To give high-level evidence the appreciation it deserves in wound care, we propose a step-by-step reporting standard for comprehensive and transparent reporting of RCTs in wound care. Critical reporting issues (e.g., wound care terminology, blinding, predefined outcome measures, and a priori sample size calculation) and wound-specific barriers (e.g., large diversity of etiologies and comorbidities of patients with wounds) that may prevent uniform implementation of reporting standards in wound care research are addressed in this article. The proposed reporting standards can be used as guidance for authors who write their RCT, as well as for peer reviewers of journals. Endorsement and application of these reporting standards may help achieve a higher standard of evidence and allow meta-analysis of reported wound care data. The ultimate goal is to help wound care professionals make better decisions for their patients in clinical practice.
© 2013 by the Wound Healing Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23937172     DOI: 10.1111/wrr.12087

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Wound Repair Regen        ISSN: 1067-1927            Impact factor:   3.617


  5 in total

1.  Prophylactic Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Closed Abdominal Incisions: A Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Cameron I Wells; Chathura B B Ratnayake; Jenni Perrin; Sanjay Pandanaboyana
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Barriers and enablers to patient recruitment for randomised controlled trials on treatment of chronic wounds: A systematic review.

Authors:  Lyndal Bugeja; Jac Kee Low; Rosemary A McGinnes; Victoria Team; Sankar Sinha; Carolina Weller
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 3.315

3.  Randomised controlled trials as part of clinical care: A seven-step routinisation framework proposal.

Authors:  Victoria Team; Carolina D Weller
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2018-12-19       Impact factor: 3.315

Review 4.  Incomplete reporting of enhanced recovery elements and its impact on achieving quality improvement.

Authors:  Vijaya Gottumukkala; Thomas A Aloia; Ryan W Day; Sharon Fielder; John Calhoun; Henrik Kehlet
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 6.939

5.  Topical treatment for facial burns.

Authors:  Cornelis J Hoogewerf; M Jenda Hop; Marianne K Nieuwenhuis; Irma Mmh Oen; Esther Middelkoop; Margriet E Van Baar
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-07-29
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.