Women's Health Nursing (여성건강간호학회지)

Korean Society of Women Health Nursing (한국여성건강간호학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Quality of Reporting of Intervention Studies in the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing (KJWHN): Based on the TREND Guidelines

여성건강간호학회지에 게재된 중재 연구 논문보고의 질 평가: TREND 지침에 근거하여

  • Received : 2013.11.26
  • Accepted : 2013.12.02
  • Published : 2013.12.20
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study was done to evaluate quality of reports of non-randomized controlled quasi-experimental study articles published in the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing (KJWHN). Methods: A search was done for experimental studies assessing intervention effects among all articles published in the KJWHN from 2008 to 2013. Original articles were reviewed and analyzed according to the 22 checklist items of the guidelines for Transparent Reporting for Evaluations with Non-randomized Designs (TREND). Results: Thirty-five articles on experimental studies were identified. The evaluation of the quality of reporting in these experimental studies found that there was a wide variety in the level of satisfying the TREND checklist. In particular, according to TREND topics, low levels of reporting quality were found for "title & abstract (only for information on how units were allocated to the intervention)", "outcomes in methods", "assignment in methods", "blinding in methods", "recruitment in results", "baseline data in results", "interpretation in discussion (especially intervention mechanism and success or barriers), "generalizability in discussion". Conclusion: Results indicate that adherence to TREND guidelines varied in experimental studies published in the KJWHN suggesting the recommendation that for higher levels of complete reporting, TREND guidelines be used in reports on experimental studies.

Keywords

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). TREND supporters. Retrieved October 13, 2013, from http://www.cdc. gov/trendstatement/supporters.html
  2. Des Jarlais, D. C., Lyles, C., Crepaz, N., & the TREND Group. (2004). Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: The TERND statement. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 361-366. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.94.3.361
  3. Hwang, Y. W., Lee, K. W., Hwang, I. H., & Kim, S. Y. (2008). The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in Korean medical journals indexed in KoreaMed: Survey of items of the revised CONSORT statement. Korean Journal of Family Medicine, 29, 276-282.
  4. Juni, P., Altman, D. G., & Egger, M. (2001). Systematic reviews in healthcare: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. British Medical Journal, 323, 42-46. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42
  5. Kim, H. J., & Kim, S. Y. (2009). Quality assessment of non-randomized studies in the Korean Jou rnal of Family Medicine. Korean Journal of Family Medicine, 30, 129-137. http://dx. doi.org/10.4082/kjfm.2009.30.2.129
  6. Kim, K. H., Kim, J. H., Lim, K. C., Lee, K. S., Jeong, J. S., Choe, M. A., et al. (2012). Quality assessment tools and reporting standards in nursing research. Journal of Korean Biological Nursing Science, 14, 221-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.7586/ jkbns.2012.14.3.221
  7. Lachin, J. M. (2000). Statistical considerations in the intent-totreat principle. Controlled Clinical Trials, 21, 169-189.
  8. Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K. F., Montori, V., Gotzsche, P. C., Devereaux, P. J., et al. (2012). CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. International Journal of Surgery 10, 28-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.10.001
  9. Riethmuller, A. M., Jones, R., & Okely, A. D. (2009). Efficacy of interventions to improve motor development in young children: A systematic review. Pediatrics, 124, e782-e792. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-0333
  10. Rothwell, P. M. (2005). External validity of randomized controlled trials: "to whom do the results of this trial apply?". Lancet, 365, 82-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17670-8
  11. Shin, C. M., Han, C. S., Pae, C. U., & Patkar, A. A. (2011). Tools for quality evaluation of clinical research reports. The Korean Journal of Psychopharmacology, 22, 67-72.
  12. Vandenbroucke, J. P., von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., et al. (2007). Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. Epidermiology, 18, 805-835. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181577511
  13. Walker, W. (2005). The strengths and weaknesses of research designs involving quantitative measures. Journal of Research in Nursing, 10, 571-582. https://doi.org/10.1177/136140960501000505
  14. Wood, L., Egger, M., Gluud, L. L., Schulz, K. F., Juni, P., Altman, D. G., et al. (2008). Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: Meta-epidemiological study. British Medical Journal, 336, 601-605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ bmj.39465.451748.AD
  15. Yoo, S. H. (2012). Reporting guidelines for health promotion research. Journal of Korean Society for Health Education and Promotion, 29, 83-99.

Cited by

  1. 기본간호학회지에 출판된 비무작위 실험연구의 방법론적 질 평가 vol.21, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.7739/jkafn.2014.21.3.311
  2. 여성건강간호학회지에 게재된 조사연구 보고 분석: STROBE 지침에 근거하여 vol.20, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2014.20.4.287
  3. 사상체질 식이 중재연구 보고에 대한 질 평가 vol.32, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.7730/jscm.2020.32.4.11