Ensaios Clínicos Randomizados na ortopedia e traumatologia: avaliação sistemática da evidência nacional

Moraes, Vinícius Ynoe de; Moreira, Cesar Domingues; Tamaoki, Marcel Jun Sugawara; Faloppa, Flávio; Belloti, João Carlos

doi:10.1590/s0102-36162010000600016

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 1975, orthopedics papers comprised only 4% of all publications in the journal, but by 2005, this number had increased to 21% of all publications in the journal. We believe that the lack of changes found by De Moraes et al 16 is because a shorter period was assessed and that the analysis was performed in two periods of five years (2000-2004 and 2005-2009). In our study, we did not analyze historical trends because we considered five years to be too short to do so.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…De Moraes et al 16 assessed 22 RCTs published in RBO and AOB from 2000 to 2009. The authors did not find significant differences in quality or types of publications when comparing the first five-year period with the second one.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The limitations of this work are that only one magazine (RBO) was analyzed over a shorter period compared to other studies 10, 16. However, unlike researchers who only assessed clinical studies,10, 11, 12, 16 we provided information about the distribution of different types of articles published in the magazine, In addition, we provided data and information about all Jadad classifications of RCTs, which is unlike the study by de Moraes et al, 16 who only provided mean values of the scoring system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Critical analysis of scientific publications of the Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia from 2006 to 2010

Malavolta¹,

Gobbi²,

Filho³

et al. 2013

Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Profile analysis of articles from scientific journals is rare in our country. The aim of this study was to perform an analysis of publications of the Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (RBO), to specify the designs of the studies and their level of evidence. Methods All articles published in RBO from January 2006 to December 2010 were classified according to the design of the study. The clinical studies were further stratified according to the level of evidence, in agreement with the norm of the journal. The studies classified as randomized and controlled clinical trials (RCTs) had their quality assessed by the system proposed by Jadad. Results I n this period, there were 376 articles published in RBO. Clinical studies represented most of the papers, with 60.64% of the total. Case series represented 61.4% of the clinical studies. Thirteen RCTs were published, accounting for 3.46% of the total, and 5.7% of the clinical studies. The analysis of the quality of the RCTs showed that 5 (38.46%) were considered high quality, while 8 (61.54%) were of low quality. Among the studies in which the level of evidence does not apply (non-clinical), non-systematic reviews (46 articles) and basic research (40 articles) have prevailed, representing 12.23% and 10.64% respectively of the total. Conclusions Case series were the most prevalent (37.23%) studies published in RBO between 2006 and 2010, while RCTs accounted for 3.46% of the articles. The majority of RCTs (61.54%) were considered low quality, and only 1.32% of the clinical studies were classified as level I evidence.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Critical analysis of scientific publications of the Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia from 2006 to 2010

Malavolta¹,

Gobbi²,

Filho³

et al. 2013

Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Critical analysis on our own scientific production is little disseminated within orthopedics and traumatology. However, some studies have reported on the status of this scientific production and have identified the most frequent types of studies, in the light of evidence-based medicine,4, 5, 27, 28 or have attempted to compare Brazilian production with what has been published in indexed international journals 29 . The present study has the virtue of including a validated tool for assessing the quality of the scientific method, which makes this approach unique within our setting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Randomized clinical trials are the gold-standard studies for determining what form of treatment is best 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. However, in situations involving surgical interventions, randomization and/or blinding may not be feasible or may be difficult to implement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective Non-randomized Studies in Orthopaedics and Traumatology: Systematic Assessment of its Methodological Quality

Pignataro

Lins

Oliveira

et al. 2013

Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia (English Edition)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In surgical interventions, randomization and blinding may be difficult to implement. In this situation, non-randomized prospective studies (EPNR) can generate the best evidence. The objective of this study is to evaluate, by means of the scale proposed by Downs & Black, the quality of EPNR published in our country and to assess the interobserver reproducibility of this scale. EPNR published in Acta Ortopedica Brasileira and Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia until 2011 and prior to 2006 were included. Two of us independently applied the Downs & Black scale. The studies were stratified by period of publication, journal and type of intervention. The scores obtained were considered to assess the reliability of the scale and groups comparison. 59 studies were considered, seven excluded during the assessments. There were no differences between the scores, except for the type of intervention, which showed better methodological quality for studies involving clinical interventions (p < 0.001). The correlation coefficient for the Downs & Black score was 0.79 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.88), demonstrating good reliability. EPNR present methodological quality similar when stratified by the periodic publication and publication period. Studies with clinical interventions have better methodological quality. The Downs & Black scale shows good interobserver reproducibility.

show abstract

Estudos prospectivos e não randomizados na ortopedia e traumatologia: avaliação sistemática da qualidade metodológica

Pignataro

Lins

Oliveira

et al. 2013

Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ensaios Clínicos Randomizados na ortopedia e traumatologia: avaliação sistemática da evidência nacional

Cited by 8 publications

References 31 publications

Critical analysis of scientific publications of the Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia from 2006 to 2010

Critical analysis of scientific publications of the Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia from 2006 to 2010

Prospective Non-randomized Studies in Orthopaedics and Traumatology: Systematic Assessment of its Methodological Quality

Estudos prospectivos e não randomizados na ortopedia e traumatologia: avaliação sistemática da qualidade metodológica

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About