Literature DB >> 29904188

A mapping review of randomized controlled trials in the spinal cord injury research literature.

Amanda McIntyre1, Brooke Benton2, Shannon Janzen2, Jerome Iruthayarajah2, Joshua Wiener2, Janice J Eng3, Robert Teasell2,4,5.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Mapping Review.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to map out and characterize the quantity and quality of all published spinal cord injury (SCI) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with respect to number, sample size, and methodological quality between January 1970 and December 2016.
SETTING: Not applicable.
METHODS: A literature search of multiple research databases was conducted. Studies adhering to the following criteria were included: the research design was an RCT; written in English; participants were >18 years; and the sample was >50% SCI. Data were extracted pertaining to author(s), year of publication, country of origin, initial and final sample size, intervention, and control. Methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) tool. Data was assessed overall and by each year of publication.
RESULTS: In total, 466 RCTs were published 1971-2016 on 29 primary topic areas, with Bladder (n = 78, 16.7%) most common, followed by Pain (n = 54, 11.6%), and Lower Limb (n = 45, 9.7%). Studies were published in 172 unique journals, with the most common being Spinal Cord (n = 68, 14.6%). The most common producer of studies was the United States (n = 191, 41.0%). RCT publications increased linearly until 2012 when the rate tripled, resulting in 40.8% published 2012-2016. A total of 247 (59.4%) RCTs had <30 subjects; there was no change in sample size over time (p = 0.770). The overall mean PEDro score was 5.56 (1.68); scores improved from 5.0 (1.4) in 1976 to 6.3 (1.9) in 2016 (F = 2.230, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The number of SCI RCTs and their associated sample size remains low; however, methodological quality has improved over time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29904188     DOI: 10.1038/s41393-018-0155-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spinal Cord        ISSN: 1362-4393            Impact factor:   2.772


  42 in total

1.  Discrepancy between published report and actual conduct of randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  Catherine L Hill; Michael P LaValley; David T Felson
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Christopher G Maher; Catherine Sherrington; Robert D Herbert; Anne M Moseley; Mark Elkins
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2003-08

3.  An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods.

Authors:  P J Devereaux; Peter T-L Choi; Samer El-Dika; Mohit Bhandari; Victor M Montori; Holger J Schünemann; Amit X Garg; Jason W Busse; Diane Heels-Ansdell; William A Ghali; Braden J Manns; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 4.  Subgroup analysis and covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials of traumatic brain injury: a systematic review.

Authors:  Adrían V Hernández; Ewout W Steyerberg; Gillian S Taylor; Anthony Marmarou; J Dik F Habbema; Andrew I R Maas
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.654

5.  Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study.

Authors:  Lesley Wood; Matthias Egger; Lise Lotte Gluud; Kenneth F Schulz; Peter Jüni; Douglas G Altman; Christian Gluud; Richard M Martin; Anthony J G Wood; Jonathan A C Sterne
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-03-03

Review 6.  Guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials for spinal cord injury as developed by the ICCP panel: clinical trial design.

Authors:  D Lammertse; M H Tuszynski; J D Steeves; A Curt; J W Fawcett; C Rask; J F Ditunno; M G Fehlings; J D Guest; P H Ellaway; N Kleitman; A R Blight; B H Dobkin; R Grossman; H Katoh; A Privat; M Kalichman
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2006-12-19       Impact factor: 2.772

Review 7.  Factors predicting publication of spinal cord injury trials registered on www.ClinicalTrials. gov.

Authors:  J Mason DePasse; Sara Park; Adam E M Eltorai; Alan H Daniels
Journal:  J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 1.398

Review 8.  A Web-based systematic review on traumatic spinal cord injury comparing the "citation classics" with the consumers' perspectives.

Authors:  Julio C Furlan; Michael G Fehlings
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 5.269

9.  Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what.

Authors:  Kenneth F Schulz; David A Grimes
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-02-23       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  The evolution of stroke rehabilitation randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Amanda McIntyre; Marina Richardson; Shannon Janzen; Norhayati Hussein; Robert Teasell
Journal:  Int J Stroke       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 5.266

View more
  1 in total

1.  Systematic reviews in spinal cord injury: A step-by-step guide for rehabilitation science learners and clinicians.

Authors:  Mohammadreza Amiri; S Mohammad Alavinia; Maryam Omidvar; Maureen Pakosh; B Catharine Craven
Journal:  J Spinal Cord Med       Date:  2021-05-26       Impact factor: 1.985

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.