Quality of Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Cancer Nursing Research

Jia–Wen Guo · Katherine Ann Sward · Susan Larsen Beck · Nancy Staggers

18 citations0/0 files storedNursing Research

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Delphi Technique in Research Methodologies in Health Research and Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide high-level evidence for evidence-based practice (EBP). The quality of RCTs has a substantial influence on providing reliable knowledge for EBP. Little is known about the quality of RCT reporting in cancer nursing. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the quality of reporting in published cancer nursing RCTs from 1984 to 2010. METHODS: A total of 227 RCTs in cancer nursing published in English-language journals and indexed in PubMed or Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were reviewed using the Jadad scale, key methodologic index (KMI), and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist to assess the quality of reporting methodological aspects of research and the overall quality of reporting RCTs. RESULTS: Adherence to reporting metrics was relatively low, based on the Jadad score (M = 1.94 out of 5, SD = 1.01), KMI scores (M = 0.84 out of 3, SD = .87), and adherence to CONSORT checklist items (M =16.92 out of 37, SD = 4.03). Only 11 of 37 items in the CONSORT checklist were reported in 80% or more of the studies reviewed. The quality of reporting showed some improvement over time. DISCUSSION: Adherence to reporting metrics for cancer nursing RCTs was suboptimal, and further efforts are needed to improve both methodology reporting and overall reporting. Journals are encouraged to adopt the CONSORT checklist to influence the quality of RCT reports.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.

References

2005Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic.1995Empirical Evidence of Bias 1995Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials 1996Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement 1996Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials 2010CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 2001Use of the CONSORT Statement and Quality of Reports of Randomized Trials 2010CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Cited by

2017A Survey of the Prevalence and Impact of Reporting Guideline Endorsement in Pathology Journals 2019Reporting sample size calculations for randomized controlled trials published in nursing journals: A cross-sectional study 2014Hoping for a TREND toward PRISMA: The Variety and Value of Research Reporting Guidelines

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.