中华口腔医学杂志
中華口腔醫學雜誌
중화구강의학잡지
Chinese Journal of Stomatology
2010年
2期
105-108
,共4页
孙燕楠%雷菲菲%曹艳丽%傅民魁
孫燕楠%雷菲菲%曹豔麗%傅民魁
손연남%뢰비비%조염려%부민괴
临床试验%随机对照试验%质量评估
臨床試驗%隨機對照試驗%質量評估
림상시험%수궤대조시험%질량평고
Clinical trials%Randomized controlled trials%Quality assessment
目的 对四种口腔专业期刊十年的正畸临床论著进行循证医学质量评估,为国内口腔正畸临床试验设计以及论著写作提供参考.方法 手工检索1999至2008年<中华口腔医学杂志>、<华西口腔医学杂志>、<实用口腔医学杂志>和<口腔正畸学>发表的正畸临床论著,提取分析论著的基本信息,对临床试验的设计进行分类评价,采用临床试验统一报告标准(consolidated standards of reporting trials,CONSORT)建立的临床试验评价标准进行质量评估.结果 共提取494篇正畸临床论著,其中有基金支持的占21.3%(105/494).所有论著中前瞻性试验占26.1%(129/494),随机对照临床试验仅有3.8%(19/494).大多数论著由于方法学部分相关信息缺失,无法进行全面的方法学质量评价.即使是随机对照临床试验,其随机方法、分配方式的隐藏、盲法的采用以及应用基线数据分析等方面也不完善.结论 口腔正畸临床试验应在试验设计及论著写作两方面进一步提高.
目的 對四種口腔專業期刊十年的正畸臨床論著進行循證醫學質量評估,為國內口腔正畸臨床試驗設計以及論著寫作提供參攷.方法 手工檢索1999至2008年<中華口腔醫學雜誌>、<華西口腔醫學雜誌>、<實用口腔醫學雜誌>和<口腔正畸學>髮錶的正畸臨床論著,提取分析論著的基本信息,對臨床試驗的設計進行分類評價,採用臨床試驗統一報告標準(consolidated standards of reporting trials,CONSORT)建立的臨床試驗評價標準進行質量評估.結果 共提取494篇正畸臨床論著,其中有基金支持的佔21.3%(105/494).所有論著中前瞻性試驗佔26.1%(129/494),隨機對照臨床試驗僅有3.8%(19/494).大多數論著由于方法學部分相關信息缺失,無法進行全麵的方法學質量評價.即使是隨機對照臨床試驗,其隨機方法、分配方式的隱藏、盲法的採用以及應用基線數據分析等方麵也不完善.結論 口腔正畸臨床試驗應在試驗設計及論著寫作兩方麵進一步提高.
목적 대사충구강전업기간십년적정기림상론저진행순증의학질량평고,위국내구강정기림상시험설계이급론저사작제공삼고.방법 수공검색1999지2008년<중화구강의학잡지>、<화서구강의학잡지>、<실용구강의학잡지>화<구강정기학>발표적정기림상론저,제취분석론저적기본신식,대림상시험적설계진행분류평개,채용림상시험통일보고표준(consolidated standards of reporting trials,CONSORT)건립적림상시험평개표준진행질량평고.결과 공제취494편정기림상론저,기중유기금지지적점21.3%(105/494).소유론저중전첨성시험점26.1%(129/494),수궤대조림상시험부유3.8%(19/494).대다수론저유우방법학부분상관신식결실,무법진행전면적방법학질량평개.즉사시수궤대조림상시험,기수궤방법、분배방식적은장、맹법적채용이급응용기선수거분석등방면야불완선.결론 구강정기림상시험응재시험설계급론저사작량방면진일보제고.
Objective To assess the quality of orthodontic clinical trials published in 4 major dental journals in the past 10 years and establish the reference standard for orthodontic clinical trials and quality control of dental journals. Methods All the clinical trials published in Chinese Journal of Stomatology, West China Journal of Stomatology, Journal of Practice Stomatology and Chinese Journal of Orthodontics from 1999 to 2008 were searched. The demographic information of the papers was extracted and the quality of the clinical trials according to the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) was assessed. Results Four hundrend and ninty-four clinical trials were retrieved, and 21.3% (105/494) of them were supported by grants. For the study design, only 26. 1% (129/494) were prospective studies, and 3.8% (19/494) were randomized clinical trials. It was hard to evaluate precisely due to the lack of information about the details of the study designs. For the randomized clinical trials, the lack of details for randomization, allocation concealment, blinding and intension to treat compromised the quality. Conclusions The general quality of clinical trials in orthodontics is poor. It needs to be improved both in the clinical study design and the paper writing.
