You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
| Title |
The quality of reporting of RCTs used within a postoperative pain management meta-analysis, using the CONSORT statement
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Anesthesiology, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2253-12-13 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Victoria Borg Debono, Shiyuan Zhang, Chenglin Ye, James Paul, Aman Arya, Lindsay Hurlburt, Yamini Murthy, Lehana Thabane |
| Abstract |
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are routinely used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses that help inform healthcare and policy decision making. The proper reporting of RCTs is important because it acts as a proxy for health care providers and researchers to appraise the quality of the methodology, conduct and analysis of an RCT. The aims of this study are to analyse the overall quality of reporting in 23 RCTs that were used in a meta-analysis by assessing 3 key methodological items, and to determine factors associated with high quality of reporting. It is hypothesized that studies with larger sample sizes, that have funding reported, that are published in journals with a higher impact factor and that are in journals that have adopted or endorsed the CONSORT statement will be associated with better overall quality of reporting and reporting of key methodological items. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 46 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 23% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 12 | 26% |
| Unknown | 6 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 51% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 9 | 19% |