Misconduct in research integrity: Assessment the quality of systematic reviews in Cochrane urological cancer review group

Misconduct in research integrity: Assessment of the quality of systematic reviews in Cochrane urological cancer review group


چاپ صفحه
پژوهان
صفحه نخست سامانه
چکیده مقاله
چکیده مقاله
نویسندگان
نویسندگان
دانلود مقاله
دانلود مقاله
دانشگاه علوم پزشکی تبریز
دانشگاه علوم پزشکی تبریز

نویسندگان: هانیه صالحی پورمهر , امیررضا ناصری , علی مصطفائی , لیلا واحدی , سنا طیبی , سکینه حاج ابراهیمی

کلمات کلیدی: Cochrane; randomized controlled trial; risk of bias; systematic review.

نشریه: 48707 , 5 , 47 , 2021

اطلاعات کلی مقاله
hide/show

نویسنده ثبت کننده مقاله سکینه حاج ابراهیمی
مرحله جاری مقاله تایید نهایی
دانشکده/مرکز مربوطه مرکز تحقیقات پزشکی مبتنی بر شواهد EBM
کد مقاله 76980
عنوان فارسی مقاله Misconduct in research integrity: Assessment the quality of systematic reviews in Cochrane urological cancer review group
عنوان لاتین مقاله Misconduct in research integrity: Assessment of the quality of systematic reviews in Cochrane urological cancer review group
ناشر 8
آیا مقاله از طرح تحقیقاتی و یا منتورشیپ استخراج شده است؟ بلی
عنوان نشریه (خارج از لیست فوق)
نوع مقاله Original Article
نحوه ایندکس شدن مقاله ایندکس شده سطح یک – ISI - Web of Science
آدرس لینک مقاله/ همایش در شبکه اینترنت

خلاصه مقاله
hide/show

Objective: Cochrane Library provides a powerful and authoritative database to aid medical decision making. We aimed to evaluate the quality of clinical trials and systematic reviews recorded in the Cochrane urology cancers group. Material and methods: This analytic cross-sectional study was conducted on 44 published systematic reviews of the Cochrane urology group which were published until May 2020. In the current study, we selected the urological cancer reviews. All types of biases in the understudied randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of these systematic reviews were evaluated using the Cochrane appraisal checklist. We also separated and stratified the types of biases in the included studies. In addition, the quality of systematic reviews was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) appraisal checklist. Results: A total of 44 systematic reviews and their understudied 340 RCTs were evaluated. On the basis of the JBI appraisal checklist results, 93.2% of systematic reviews had high quality. In terms of the quality of understudied RCTs in these reviews, the common prevalent risk of bias of the understudied RCTs or quasi- RCTs was unclear selection bias (allocation concealment and random sequence generation). The highest risk of bias was seen in the blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias). Conclusion: Although most Cochrane urological cancer reviews had high quality, performance bias was the highest one in their understudied RCTs. Regarding it and considering the increasing unclear risk of detection, attrition, and reporting biases, it is obvious that they have structural deficiencies; therefore, it is recommended to observe integrity principles for preventing research misconduct.

نویسندگان
hide/show

نویسنده نفر چندم مقاله
هانیه صالحی پورمهراول
امیررضا ناصریدوم
علی مصطفائیسوم
لیلا واحدیچهارم
سنا طیبیششم
سکینه حاج ابراهیمیهشتم

لینک دانلود مقاله
hide/show

نام فایل تاریخ درج فایل اندازه فایل دانلود
TJU.pdf1400/07/14850905دانلود