Randomized Controlled Trials and Quasi-Experimental Studies Published in Nursing Journals: Findings From a Scoping Review With Implications for Further Research

Randomized controlled trials in nursing conducted by Latin American research teams: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone of systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis. RCT identification remains challenging because of limitations in their indexation in major databases and potential language bias. Scientific production in Latin American nursing is steadily increasing, but little is known about its design or main features. We aimed to identify the extent of evidence from RCTs in nursing conducted by Latin American research teams and evaluate their main characteristics, including potential risk of bias.

DESIGN

Scoping review with risk of bias assessment.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review including a comprehensive electronic search in five relevant databases. We completed a descriptive data analysis and a risk of bias assessment of eligible studies using Cochrane's guidance.

RESULTS

We identified 1784 references of which 47 were RCTs published in 40 journals. Twenty (42.6%) RCTs were published in journals in English. Chronic diseases were the most common health conditions studied (29.7%). Fifteen (31.9%) RCTs had a high risk of bias. Thirty (75%) journals were included in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) catalog and 5 (16.7%) were journals classified under nursing category. Twenty-one (52.5%) journals explicitly required CONSORT checklist recommendations for RCTs reporting.

CONCLUSION

Publication of RCTs in nursing by Latin American authors has increased. Most journals where RCTs are published are in English and not specific to nursing. Searches in journals of other disciplines may be necessary to facilitate identification of RCTs in nursing. CONSORT statements need to be actively promoted to facilitate rigorous methodology and reporting of RCTs.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

This study highlights the need for an increased research focus on RCTs in nursing in Latin America, and the importance of enhancing the reporting quality of these studies to support evidence-based nursing practice.

Midwife led randomised controlled trials in Australia and New Zealand: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Midwives are the largest workforce involved in caring for pregnant women and their babies, and are well placed to translate research into practice and ensure midwifery priorities are appropriately targeted in researched. Currently, the number and focus of randomised controlled trials led by midwives in Australia and New Zealand is unknown. The Australasian Nursing and Midwifery Clinical Trials Network was established in 2020 to build nursing and midwifery research capacity. To aid this, scoping reviews of the quality and quantity of nurse and midwife led trials were undertaken.

AIM

To identify midwife led trials conducted between 2000 and 2021 in Australia and New Zealand.

METHODS

This review was informed by the JBI scoping review framework. Medline, Emcare, and Scopus were searched from 2000-August 2021. ANZCTR, NHMRC, MRFF, and HRC (NZ) registries were searched from inception to July 2021.

FINDINGS

Of 26,467 randomised controlled trials registered on the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, 50 midwife led trials, and 35 peer-reviewed publications were identified. Publications were of moderate to high quality with scores limited due to an inability to blind participants or clinicians. Blinding of assessors was included in 19 published trials.

DISCUSSION

Additional support for midwives to design and conduct trials and publish findings is required. Further support is needed to translate registration of trial protocols into peer reviewed publications.

CONCLUSION

These findings will inform the Australasian Nursing and Midwifery Clinical Trials Network plans to promote quality midwife led trials.

A scoping review of nurse-led randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Nurses comprise the largest portion of the healthcare workforce worldwide. However, nurse representation in the leadership of clinical research and research funding is largely unknown. The Australasian Nursing and Midwifery Clinical Trials Network was established to provide a coordinated network, focussed on building research capacity in nursing and midwifery. To support this work, this scoping review of nurse-led randomised controlled trials was conducted to summarise research activity, as well as highlight future research directions, gaps and resources. Midwife-led trials will be reported elsewhere.

AIM

To quantify number, type and quality of nurse-led randomised controlled trials registered between 2000-2021.

DESIGN

A scoping review of RCTs.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Emcare and Scopus were searched from 2000 to August 2021. ANZCTR, NHMRC, MRFF and HRC (NZ) registries were searched from inception to July 2021.

REVIEW METHODS

This review was informed by the JBI scoping review framework using the PRISMA-ScR.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 188 nurse-led publications and 279 registered randomised controlled trials. Multiple trials had the same nurse leaders. There were more registrations than publications. Publications were predominantly of high methodological quality; however, there was a reliance on active controls and blinding was low. Trial registrations indicate that universities and hospital/healthcare organisations were the major sources of funding, while publications indicate that Governments and the National Health and Medical Research Council were the main funding bodies.

CONCLUSION

A small number of high-quality, large-scale, nationally funded randomised controlled trials were identified, with a larger number of locally funded small trials. There was a disparity between the number of registered trials and those published. Additional infrastructure, funding and career frameworks are needed to enable nurses to design, conduct and publish clinical trials that inform the health system and improve health outcomes.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Research initiated and led by nurses has the potential to improve the health and well-being of individuals and communities, and current nurse-led research is of high methodological quality; however, there were very few nurse-led RCTs, conducted by a small pool of nurse researchers. This gap highlights the need for support in the design, conduct and publishing of nurse-led RCTs.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This is a scoping review; therefore, patient or public contribution is not applicable.

Nursing-Sensitive Outcomes among Patients Cared for in Paediatric Intensive Care Units: A Scoping Review

Measuring the effectiveness of nursing interventions in intensive care units has been established as a priority. However, little is reported about the paediatric population. The aims of this study were (a) to map the state of the art of the science in the field of nursing-sensitive outcomes (NSOs) in paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) and (b) to identify all reported NSOs documented to date in PICUs by also describing their metrics. A scoping review was conducted by following the framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. Fifty-eight articles were included. Publications were mainly authored in the United States and Canada (n = 28, 48.3%), and the majority (n = 30, 51.7%) had an observational design. A total of 46 NSOs were documented. The most reported were related to the clinical (n = 83), followed by safety (n = 41) and functional (n = 18) domains. Regarding their metrics, the majority of NSOs were measured in their occurrence using quantitative single measures, and a few validated tools were used to a lesser extent. No NSOs were reported in the perceptual domain. Nursing care of critically ill children encompasses three levels: improvement in clinical performance, as measured by clinical outcomes; assurance of patient care safety, as measured by safety outcomes; and promotion of fundamental care needs, as measured by functional outcomes. Perceptual outcomes deserve to be explored.

Nurse-Led Randomized Controlled Trials in the Perioperative Setting: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

Nurses provide care at each phase of the complex, perioperative pathway and are well placed to identify areas of care requiring investigation in randomized controlled trials. Yet, currently, the scope of nurse-led randomized controlled trials conducted within the perioperative setting are unknown. This scoping review aims to identify areas of perioperative care in which nurse-led randomized controlled trials have been conducted, to identify issues impacting upon the quality of these trials and identify gaps for future investigation.

METHODS

This scoping review was conducted in reference to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, with a date range of 2014-19. Sources of unpublished literature included Open Grey, and ProQuest Dissertation and Theses, Clinical Trials.gov and the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. After title and abstract checking, full-text retrieval and data extraction, studies were appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists for randomized controlled trials. Data were synthesized according to the main objectives. Key information was tabulated.

RESULTS

From the 86 included studies, key areas where nurses have led randomized controlled trials include patient or caregiver anxiety; postoperative pain relief; surgical site infection prevention: patient and caregiver knowledge; perioperative hypothermia prevention; postoperative nausea and vomiting; in addition to other diverse outcomes. Issues impacting upon quality (including poorly reported randomization), and gaps for future investigation (including a focus on vulnerable populations), are evident.

CONCLUSION

Nurse-led randomized controlled trials in the perioperative setting have focused on key areas of perioperative care. Yet, opportunities exist for nurses to lead experimental research in other perioperative priority areas and within different populations that have been neglected, such as in the population of older adults undergoing surgery.

Reporting sample size calculations for randomized controlled trials published in nursing journals: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Prior sample size calculation is essential to ensure that a randomized controlled trial (RCT) has enough power to detect any statistical differences between two groups while not over-recruiting participants. However, the compliance among RCTs published in nursing field is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the reporting of sample size methodology and parameters used in RCTs published in nursing journals.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional database search of all RCTs published in nursing journals was conducted.

SETTING

116 journals in the category of nursing.

PARTICIPANTS

Not applicable.

METHODS

A database search was conducted to identify all RCTs published in nursing journals from January 2016 to December 2016. Two-arm RCTs were reviewed to see if sample size estimation was mentioned in the text and if the parameters were sufficient for the estimation. For RCTs with effect size, sample sizes were recomputed and compared with the reported size.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-three RCTs were included in this study, and 143 (64.1%) studies mentioned how they obtained their sample sizes. Among these 143 studies, 132 (92.3%), 133 (93.0%), 33 (23.1%), and 84 (58.7%) specified their levels of significance (α), powers, tails of the test, and effect size related information, respectively. Only 22 (15.4%) provided all the necessary parameters to compute their sample sizes. Out of the 84 RCTs with effect size information, 49 (58.3%) had a relative difference of less than 25%.

DISCUSSION

Around 36% of the RCTs published in nursing journals did not report how they reached their sample sizes. For those that had reported, only 15% provided all the necessary parameters to re-compute their sizes. It is concluded that the methodology and parameters used for sample size determination are inadequately reported in RCTs published in nursing journals.