We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Review
Methodological characteristics of randomized controlled trials of ultrasonography in emergency medicine: A review.
American Journal of Emergency Medicine 2018 November 18
INTRODUCTION: Interest in ultrasonography in emergency medicine has increased in recent years, as reflected by a marked increase in publications on the topic. The aim of this study was to 1) describe and evaluate methodological characteristics of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating an ultrasound intervention in emergency department and 2) estimate whether the reports adequately described the intervention to allow replication.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE via PubMed for RCTs published in 2015 assessing an ultrasound intervention, regardless of type, that were performed in an emergency department or evaluated in an emergency situation. Two researchers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. Data from all included studies were independently extracted. The Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool was used to assess risk of bias of reports, and the intervention reporting was evaluated by using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist.
RESULTS: We identified 11 reports. The most frequent topic was vascular access/identification (n = 4). Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were performed correctly in 55% and 27% trials. Three quarters of reports (73%) showed improper reporting or absence of participant blinding. Risk of bias due to assessor blinding was rated low for 3 RCTs (27%), risk of attrition bias low for all reports, and risk of selective outcome reporting unclear for most reports (n = 10). Only 3 reports (27%) provided an optimal description of the intervention.
CONCLUSION: The quality of these trials raises questions. In our sample, the authors did not correctly report blinding of participants and assessors or allocation concealment.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE via PubMed for RCTs published in 2015 assessing an ultrasound intervention, regardless of type, that were performed in an emergency department or evaluated in an emergency situation. Two researchers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. Data from all included studies were independently extracted. The Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool was used to assess risk of bias of reports, and the intervention reporting was evaluated by using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist.
RESULTS: We identified 11 reports. The most frequent topic was vascular access/identification (n = 4). Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were performed correctly in 55% and 27% trials. Three quarters of reports (73%) showed improper reporting or absence of participant blinding. Risk of bias due to assessor blinding was rated low for 3 RCTs (27%), risk of attrition bias low for all reports, and risk of selective outcome reporting unclear for most reports (n = 10). Only 3 reports (27%) provided an optimal description of the intervention.
CONCLUSION: The quality of these trials raises questions. In our sample, the authors did not correctly report blinding of participants and assessors or allocation concealment.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app