Identificación de ensayos clínicos en revistas dermatológicas publicadas en español

Quality assessment of controlled clinical trials published in Orthopaedics and Traumatology journals in Spanish: An observational study through handsearching and evidence mapping

Few Orthopaedics and Traumatology journals from Latin America and Spain are indexed in major databases; controlled clinical trials published in these journals cannot be exhaustively retrieved using electronic literature searches. We aimed to identify, describe and assess the quality of controlled clinical trials published in Orthopaedics and Traumatology journals from Latin America and Spain through handsearching and evidence mapping methods. We identified controlled clinical trials published in eligible Orthopaedics/Traumatology journals in Spanish until July 2017 by handsearching. Data were extracted for controlled clinical trials main characteristics and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the controlled clinical trials methodological quality. In addition, we mapped the main findings of these trials. As a result, we assessed 5631 references in 29 eligible journals of which 57 were controlled clinical trials (1.0%). Controlled clinical trials were published between 1995 and 2017 at a rate of 2.5 per year. Journals from Spain and Mexico published around 63% of the controlled clinical trials identified. The median sample size of patients enrolled was 60 (range = 30-300 participants). About conditions assessed, 38.5% of controlled clinical trials assessed issues related to knee conditions, 15.7% about hip and 10.5% about trauma or spine. The risk of bias domains most affected was selective reporting bias and random sequence generation. In addition, only two and seven trials had low risk of bias in all items related to participant/personnel and outcome assessment blindings, respectively. More than 40% of studies did not report differences on benefits/harms between the interventions assessed. As a conclusion, the number of controlled clinical trials published in Orthopaedics/Traumatology journals from Latin America and Spain is low. These controlled clinical trials had important methodological shortcomings and were judged as unclear or high risk of bias. These trials are now available in CENTRAL for their potential inclusion in systematic reviews and other documents of synthesis.

Identification and description of controlled clinical trials published in Spanish Ophthalmology Journals

PURPOSE

Properly conducted controlled clinical trials (CCTs) provide the highest level of evidence for optimising decision-making in healthcare. Electronic search strategies do not exhaustively retrieve them, because of issues related to indexing, exclusion of journals in languages other than English, among others. A handsearch approach is therefore warranted. We aimed to identify all CCTs published in Ophthalmology journals in Spain, to describe their main features, and to submit them to the Cochrane Register of CCTs (CENTRAL).

METHODS

After identifying all Spanish Ophthalmology Journals, we conducted a systematic handsearch following Cochrane guidelines. When appropriate, results were compared against electronic searches. A descriptive analysis was completed, including risk of bias assessment.

RESULTS

We identified 18 eligible journals; 10 074 original articles, editorials, letters to the editor, abstracts and conference proceedings were assessed via handsearching for inclusion. Of these, 136 were subject to title and abstract screening, after which 102 were classified as CCTs. We identified three articles via electronic searches that had not been detected via handsearch, for a total of 105 CCTs. Among these, the most investigated pathologies were cataracts (32/105; 30.5%) and glaucoma (23/105 21.9%). Regarding risk of bias, 104/105 (99.0%) were deemed as "high risk of bias", mainly due to flaws in sequence generation and allocation concealment. 15/105 (14.3%) mentioned conflicts of interest, half of which had something to declare. No CCT reported adherence to CONSORT.

CONCLUSION

Spanish Ophthalmology journals publish a low number of CCTs, with limited methodological quality. Handsearching was more sensitive than the electronic searching. Abbreviations CCT: Controlled clinical trial.

BADERI: an online database to coordinate handsearching activities of controlled clinical trials for their potential inclusion in systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews provide the best evidence on the effect of health care interventions. They rely on comprehensive access to the available scientific literature. Electronic search strategies alone may not suffice, requiring the implementation of a handsearching approach. We have developed a database to provide an Internet-based platform from which handsearching activities can be coordinated, including a procedure to streamline the submission of these references into CENTRAL, the Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Trials.

METHODS

We developed a database and a descriptive analysis. Through brainstorming and discussion among stakeholders involved in handsearching projects, we designed a database that met identified needs that had to be addressed in order to ensure the viability of handsearching activities. Three handsearching teams pilot tested the proposed database. Once the final version of the database was approved, we proceeded to train the staff involved in handsearching.

RESULTS

The proposed database is called BADERI (Database of Iberoamerican Clinical Trials and Journals, by its initials in Spanish). BADERI was officially launched in October 2015, and it can be accessed at www.baderi.com/login.php free of cost. BADERI has an administration subsection, from which the roles of users are managed; a references subsection, where information associated to identified controlled clinical trials (CCTs) can be entered; a reports subsection, from which reports can be generated to track and analyse the results of handsearching activities; and a built-in free text search engine. BADERI allows all references to be exported in ProCite files that can be directly uploaded into CENTRAL. To date, 6284 references to CCTs have been uploaded to BADERI and sent to CENTRAL. The identified CCTs were published in a total of 420 journals related to 46 medical specialties. The year of publication ranged between 1957 and 2016.

CONCLUSIONS

BADERI allows the efficient management of handsearching activities across different countries and institutions. References to all CCTs available in BADERI can be readily submitted to CENTRAL for their potential inclusion in systematic reviews.

Analysis of the Quality of Clinical Trials Published in Spanish-Language Dermatology Journals Between 1997 and 2012

INTRODUCTION

The value of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) undertaken to identify an association between an intervention and an outcome is determined by their quality and scientific rigor.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the methodological quality of RCTs published in Spanish-language dermatology journals.

METHODS

By way of a systematic manual search, we identified all the RCTs in journals published in Spain and Latin America between 1997 (the year in which the CONSORT statement was published) and 2012. Risk of bias was evaluated for each RCT by assessing the following domains: randomization sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of patients and those assessing outcomes, missing data, and patient follow-up. Source of funding and conflict of interest statements, if any, were recorded for each study.

RESULTS

The search identified 70 RCTs published in 21 journals. Most of the RCTs had a high risk of bias, primarily because of gaps in the reporting of important methodological aspects. The source of funding was reported in only 15 studies.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In spite of the considerable number of Spanish and Latin American journals, few RCTs have been published in the 15 years analyzed. Most of the RCTs published had serious defects in that the authors omitted methodological information essential to any evaluation of the quality of the trial and failed to report sources of funding or possible conflicts of interest for the authors involved. Authors of experimental clinical research in dermatology published in Spain and Latin America need to substantially improve both the design of their trials and the reporting of results.