چاپ صفحه |  صفحه نخست سامانه |  چکیده مقاله |  نویسندگان |  دانلود مقاله | دانشگاه علوم پزشکی تبریز |
| Purpose Gynecological cancers are common neoplasms in clinical settings with a high impact on the economy of communities. The medical literature is an essential resource to guide clinical decision-making, and misconduct in researches undermines the credibility and integrity of research in general. We aimed to evaluate the quality of Cochrane gynecological cancers reviews and their understudies RCTS among the different biases dimensions. Methods This cross-sectional analytical study was performed on 118 systematic reviews published by the Cochrane gynecological cancers Group up to June 2021. The risk of bias was assessed in each Cochrane survey using the Joanna Bridges Institute (JBI) critical assessment tool consisting of 11 questions. The JBI checklist for systematic reviews and research syntheses is available at https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools. After a systematic critical evaluation of the reviews and meta-analysis, we extracted a different bias from all of their understudied RCTs examined in these systematic reviews, which were evaluated by systematic review authors using a standard bias risk tool developed by the Cochrane Group. Results Cochrane gynecological cancers reviews had high quality based on appraise results using the JBI appraisal checklist. In addition, all of the included studies used PRISMA standards for reporting their results. However, in their understudied RCTs, the most prevalent risk of bias was unclear selection bias (allocation concealment) and performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel). Also, the highest risk of bias was blinding participants and personnel (performance bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). Our results showed that the lowest risk of bias was incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) and random sequence generation (selection bias). Conclusion Although most Cochrane gynecological cancers reviews had high quality, unclear performance bias was the highest in their understudied RCTs, indicating structural deficiencies. |
| نویسنده | نفر چندم مقاله |
|---|---|
| سکینه حاج ابراهیمی | اول |
| نوریه دلیراکبری | دوم |
| آرش حاجی کمانج علیا | سوم |
| سینا حسن نژاد | چهارم |
| سارینا امینی زاده | پنجم |
| فایزه درویشی | ششم |
| ریحانه حاج ابراهیمی | هفتم |
| هانیه صالحی پورمهر | هشتم |
| نام فایل | تاریخ درج فایل | اندازه فایل | دانلود |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of the Systematic Reviews in Cochrane Gynecological Cancer Group and Their Understudied RCTs _ SpringerLink.pdf | 1401/05/11 | 238221 | دانلود |
