prikaz prve stranice dokumenta The use of systematic reviews in randomized controlled trials in anesthesiology
  Download
PDF 190.33 KB
master's thesis
The use of systematic reviews in randomized controlled trials in anesthesiology
Split: University of Split, School of Medicine, 2017. urn:nbn:hr:171:609953
Engelking, Anja
University of Split
School of Medicine
Anatomy

Cite this document

Engelking, A. (2017). The use of systematic reviews in randomized controlled trials in anesthesiology (Master's thesis). Split: University of Split, School of Medicine. Retrieved from https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:171:609953

Engelking, Anja. "The use of systematic reviews in randomized controlled trials in anesthesiology." Master's thesis, University of Split, School of Medicine, 2017. https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:171:609953

Engelking, Anja. "The use of systematic reviews in randomized controlled trials in anesthesiology." Master's thesis, University of Split, School of Medicine, 2017. https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:171:609953

Engelking, A. (2017). 'The use of systematic reviews in randomized controlled trials in anesthesiology', Master's thesis, University of Split, School of Medicine, accessed 18 April 2024, https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:171:609953

Engelking A. The use of systematic reviews in randomized controlled trials in anesthesiology [Master's thesis]. Split: University of Split, School of Medicine; 2017 [cited 2024 April 18] Available at: https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:171:609953

A. Engelking, "The use of systematic reviews in randomized controlled trials in anesthesiology", Master's thesis, University of Split, School of Medicine, Split, 2017. Available at: https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:171:609953

Please login to the repository to save this object to your list.
Metadata
TitleThe use of systematic reviews in randomized controlled trials in anesthesiology
Title (croatian)Uporaba sustavnih pregleda u randomiziranim kontroliranim pokusima iz anesteziologije
AuthorAnja Engelking
MentorLivia Puljak (mentor)
Committee memberJoško Božić (predsjednik povjerenstva)
Committee memberMihajlo Lojpur (član povjerenstva)
Committee memberIris Jerončić Tomić (član povjerenstva)
GranterUniversity of Split
School of Medicine
(Anatomy)
Split
Defense date and country2017-07-24, Croatia
Scientific / art field,
discipline and subdiscipline		BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTHCARE
Clinical Medical Sciences
Anesthesiology and Reanimatology
Abstract
Objectives: Systematic reviews (SRs) summarize current knowledge on a certain clinical question. To avoid research waste, new randomized clinical trials (RCTs) should be initiated if previous SRs indicate that there is no such evidence or that there is insufficient evidence from previous RCTs. The objective of this study was to analyze whether previous SRs are mentioned in RCTs published in anesthesiology journals as a rationale for conducting the RCT and for discussing the results. Methods: This was a meta-epidemiological, descriptive cross-sectional study. We analyzed RCTs published in the seven first-quartile journals from the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) category Anesthesiology between 2014 and 2016. We studied text and bibliography of the RCTs to assess whether the authors made a reference to previous SRs when justifying the need for their own clinical trial and discussing the results. Results: Almost half of the included RCTs (44%) did not mention a single systematic review, either in text explicitly or as a reference. Around 10% of the included RCTs mentioned a previous systematic review as a justification for conducting a trial. Between 2014 and 2016 we noted no significant difference in the number of SRs mentioned as a justification in introduction or discussion but the total number of SRs mentioned increased significantly (F= 3.73, P= 0.035). Conclusions: Although an increase of total mentions of systematic reviews was observed, the percentage of articles that actually used them to justify their trials did not change significantly.
Abstract (croatian)
Ciljevi: Sustavni pregledi sažimaju trenutno znanje o pojedinim kliničkim pitanjima. Kako bi se izbjeglo razbacivanje istraživačkim resursima novi randomizirani klinički pokusi trebali bi se provoditi samo ako raniji sustavni pregledi pokazuju da nema dovoljno takvih dokaza ili da ranije provedeni klinički pokusi ne sadrže dostatne dokaze. Cilj ovog istraživanja bio je analizirati spominju li se raniji sustavni pregledi u radovima koji opisuju kliničke pokuse kao opravdanje za provedbu tog pokusa i za diskutiranje rezultata. Metode: Provedeno je metodološko presječno istraživanje. Analizirani su randomizirani klinički pokusi objavljeni od 2014. do 2016. u sedam časopisa iz prve kvartile u Journal Citation Reports (JCR) kategoriji iz područja anesteziologije. Analiziran je tekst i bibliografija kliničkog pokusa kako bi se utvrdilo spominju li se sustavni pregledi eksplicitno ili samo kao referenca, i spominju li se kao razlog zašto je potreban novi klinički pokus. Rezultati: Gotovo polovina uključenih kliničkih pokusa (44%) nije citirala niti jedan sustavni pregled, ili eksplicitno u tekstu ili kao referencu. Samo 13% analiziranih kliničkih pokusa spomenulo je raniji sustavni pregled kao opravdanje za provedbu pokusa u uvodu, 0,03% u metodama i 9,6% u raspravi. Između 2014. i 2016. godine nije uočeno značajno povećanje spominjanja sustavnih pregleda kao opravdanja za korištenje kliničkog pokusa, ali je uočeno značajno povećanje broja citiranih sustavnih pregleda (F= 3.73, P= 0.035). Zaključak: Iako je uočeno povećanje broja citiranih sustavnih pregleda u analiziranom razdoblju, postotak kliničkih pokusa koji koriste te sustavne preglede kao opravdanje za provedbu kliničkog pokusa još uvijek je vrlo nizak. Nužno je provesti intervencije koje će povećati svijest autora kliničkih pokusa o potrebi provedbe kliničkog pokusa jedino ako ta potreba zaista postoji temeljem ranije sinteze literature, a isto tako o potrebi citiranja sinteze literature na kojoj se potreba za novim kliničkim pokusom temelji.
Keywords
Keywords (croatian)
Languageenglish
URN:NBNurn:nbn:hr:171:609953
Study programmeTitle: Medical Studies in English
Study programme type: university
Study level: integrated undergraduate and graduate
Academic / professional title: doktor/doktorica medicine (doktor/doktorica medicine)
Type of resourceText
File originBorn digital
Access conditionsOpen access
Terms of useLicence In copyright icon
RepositoryMEFST Repository
Created on2017-12-11 13:58:28