جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « تصادفی سازی » در نشریات گروه « پزشکی »

Randomized controlled clinical trial studies are the most valuable types of studies that their proper design and accurate reporting are of particular importance in medical science. This study was performed with aim to critically evaluate the randomized controlled clinical trial studies in the Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility.

In this cross-sectional analytic study, the clinical trial articles of the Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility between 2009 and 2019 were collected and scored based on the latest edition of the Consort Checklist (2010) by three biostatisticians that their training's adequacy was confirmed by measuring the kappa agreement coefficient. The articles were scored, and based on the scores, they were classified into five categories: very poor to excellent. Data were analyzed by SPSS software (version 25) and descriptive statistics.

Out of a total of 1318 articles published during 11 years, 325 were clinical trials, among them only 6 articles (1.85%) were rated as excellent. The lowest and highest scores among the reviewed articles were 14 and 28 (maximum score was 37). The mean and standard deviation of the scores obtained in all articles was calculated as 19.05± 0.34. However, less attention was paid to the two main issues of randomization and blindness in the clinical trials.

Due to the importance of clinical trial studies, it is necessary to pay attention to the articles' quality based on the consort checklist. It is also suggested that authors of such articles pay more attention to the two essential foundations of clinical studies, randomization and blindness, to increase the generalization of the results.

Clinical trials are used extensively in the compilation of systematic review studies and clinical guidelines. Critical appraisal of articles is a part of systematic review writing and also effective in citation. This study aimed to evaluate quality of randomized clinical trial articles of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences with consideration report of randomized, blindness, and allocation concealment methods in them.

In this study, all randomized clinical trials with Mashhad University of Medical Sciences affiliation indexed in PubMed by 2018 were evaluated.

Of 257 eligible articles, dentistry (n=44 , 17.1%) , obstetrics and gynecology (n=28 , 10.9%) and internal medicine (n=23 , 8.9%) had the highest relative frequency of published randomized clinical trial articles. Eithy-three articles (32.3%) reported the randomization method and most of them (86.9%) used simple randomization. Blinding was done in 138 papers (53.7%) with double blinding being the most common (70.2%). Only three articles (1.2%) reported allocation concealment.

The report of "random allocation and randomization" in articles was far less than acceptable. It may seem that there may be different biases in the methodology. Upholding the principles of scientific writing and avoiding errors and biases increase the validity of the scientific articles and citation, which is one of the criteria of the scientific ranking of top universities.

Randomization is one of the principles of correct clinical trial. The aim of this study was to determine the quality of randomization in the published articles of clinical trials in the Persian-language journals indexed in Scopus.   In this cross-sectional study, all clinical trials published in Persian journals indexed in Scopus during 2013-2017 were evaluated in terms of randomization using the Jadad scale. The score of the randomization item of this scale ranges from 0 to 2, with 0, 1, and 2 indicating poor, moderate, and good quality.   A total of 452 articles were evaluated. Random allocation was indicated in 423 articles (93.6%). Simple random assignment and blocked methods were used in 42.8% and 22% of randomizations, respectively. The randomization method was unknown in 34% and an incorrect method was used for randomization in 5.3% of the articles. According to the Jadad scale, 56.4% of the articles had good, 36.9% had moderate, and 6.6% had poor quality in terms of randomization. Methodologists were consulted in 40.7% of the articles, and their contributions led to increased transparency in the randomization report (P = 0.007).   The randomization method and its report are missing in many clinical trials. Therefore, considering the importance of randomization in validating the results of these studies, journals editors and researchers should pay attention to the quality of randomization and its report.

Given the considerable attention to research in recent years, review and elimination of errors in any research are of great importance. With respect to the scant review articles within the field of dentistry, especially randomized controlled clinical trials, this study aimed to collect and review these articles.
All randomized controlled clinical trials published in the Journal of Dental School, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran during 2003-2015 were collected and scored based on CONSORT checklist. Data analysis was performed in SPSS version 20. Central tendency and dispersion of the obtained scores were calculated. Accordingly, all articles were classified as weak, medium, good and excellent.
Among 514 collected articles, 64 were clinical trials, 40 of which were randomized controlled clinical trials. Most clinical trials (seven papers) were published during 2003-2009, whereas only one paper was published in 2012, 2005, 2004 and 2013. Mean and standard deviation of percentage of scores of all articles was 57.79±13.61. In addition, the highest mean score was obtained in 2014.
According to the results of this study, given the importance of randomized controlled clinical trials, it seems necessary to overcome the mentioned shortcomings and increase the quality of these studies.