Assessment of risk of bias in quasi-randomized controlled trials and randomized controlled trials reported in the Korean journal of Anesthesiology between 2010 and 2016

Jong Hae Kim, Tae Kyun Kim, Junyong In, Dong Kyu Lee, Sangseok Lee, Hyun Kang

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Bias affects the true intervention effect in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), making the results unreliable. We evaluated the risk of bias (ROB) of quasi-RCTs or RCTs reported in the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology (KJA) between 2010 and 2016. Six kinds of bias (selection, performance, detection, attrition, reporting, and other biases) were evaluated by determining low, unclear, or high ROB for eight domains (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants, blinding of personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other bias) according to publication year. We identified 296 quasi-RCTs or RCTs. Random sequence generation was performed better than allocation concealment (51.7% vs. 20.9% for the proportion of low ROB, P < 0.001 and P = 0.943 for trend, respectively). Blinding of outcome assessment was superior to blinding of participants and personnel (42.9% vs. 15.5% and 23.0% for the proportion of low ROB, P = 0.026 vs. P = 0.003 and 0.896 for trend, respectively). Handling of incomplete outcome data was performed best with the highest proportion of low ROB (84.8%). Selective reporting had the lowest proportion of low ROB (4.7%). However, the ROB improved year by year (P < 0.001 for trend). Authors and reviewers should consider allocation concealment after random sequence generation, blinding of participants and personnel, and full reporting of results to improve the quality of RCTs submitted hereafter for publication in the KJA.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)511-519
Number of pages9
JournalKorean Journal of Anesthesiology
Volume70
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017 Oct 1

Fingerprint

Anesthesiology
Randomized Controlled Trials
Publications
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Selection Bias
Research Design

Keywords

  • Bias
  • Publishing
  • Quality analysis
  • Randomized controlled trial

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

Assessment of risk of bias in quasi-randomized controlled trials and randomized controlled trials reported in the Korean journal of Anesthesiology between 2010 and 2016. / Kim, Jong Hae; Kim, Tae Kyun; In, Junyong; Lee, Dong Kyu; Lee, Sangseok; Kang, Hyun.

In: Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, Vol. 70, No. 5, 01.10.2017, p. 511-519.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{dc52c2a5c42349e891a3ab8375c99ffe,
title = "Assessment of risk of bias in quasi-randomized controlled trials and randomized controlled trials reported in the Korean journal of Anesthesiology between 2010 and 2016",
abstract = "Bias affects the true intervention effect in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), making the results unreliable. We evaluated the risk of bias (ROB) of quasi-RCTs or RCTs reported in the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology (KJA) between 2010 and 2016. Six kinds of bias (selection, performance, detection, attrition, reporting, and other biases) were evaluated by determining low, unclear, or high ROB for eight domains (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants, blinding of personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other bias) according to publication year. We identified 296 quasi-RCTs or RCTs. Random sequence generation was performed better than allocation concealment (51.7{\%} vs. 20.9{\%} for the proportion of low ROB, P < 0.001 and P = 0.943 for trend, respectively). Blinding of outcome assessment was superior to blinding of participants and personnel (42.9{\%} vs. 15.5{\%} and 23.0{\%} for the proportion of low ROB, P = 0.026 vs. P = 0.003 and 0.896 for trend, respectively). Handling of incomplete outcome data was performed best with the highest proportion of low ROB (84.8{\%}). Selective reporting had the lowest proportion of low ROB (4.7{\%}). However, the ROB improved year by year (P < 0.001 for trend). Authors and reviewers should consider allocation concealment after random sequence generation, blinding of participants and personnel, and full reporting of results to improve the quality of RCTs submitted hereafter for publication in the KJA.",
keywords = "Bias, Publishing, Quality analysis, Randomized controlled trial",
author = "Kim, {Jong Hae} and Kim, {Tae Kyun} and Junyong In and Lee, {Dong Kyu} and Sangseok Lee and Hyun Kang",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4097/kjae.2017.70.5.511",
language = "English",
volume = "70",
pages = "511--519",
journal = "Korean Journal of Anesthesiology",
issn = "2005-6419",
publisher = "Korean Society of Anesthesiologists",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment of risk of bias in quasi-randomized controlled trials and randomized controlled trials reported in the Korean journal of Anesthesiology between 2010 and 2016

AU - Kim, Jong Hae

AU - Kim, Tae Kyun

AU - In, Junyong

AU - Lee, Dong Kyu

AU - Lee, Sangseok

AU - Kang, Hyun

PY - 2017/10/1

Y1 - 2017/10/1

N2 - Bias affects the true intervention effect in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), making the results unreliable. We evaluated the risk of bias (ROB) of quasi-RCTs or RCTs reported in the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology (KJA) between 2010 and 2016. Six kinds of bias (selection, performance, detection, attrition, reporting, and other biases) were evaluated by determining low, unclear, or high ROB for eight domains (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants, blinding of personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other bias) according to publication year. We identified 296 quasi-RCTs or RCTs. Random sequence generation was performed better than allocation concealment (51.7% vs. 20.9% for the proportion of low ROB, P < 0.001 and P = 0.943 for trend, respectively). Blinding of outcome assessment was superior to blinding of participants and personnel (42.9% vs. 15.5% and 23.0% for the proportion of low ROB, P = 0.026 vs. P = 0.003 and 0.896 for trend, respectively). Handling of incomplete outcome data was performed best with the highest proportion of low ROB (84.8%). Selective reporting had the lowest proportion of low ROB (4.7%). However, the ROB improved year by year (P < 0.001 for trend). Authors and reviewers should consider allocation concealment after random sequence generation, blinding of participants and personnel, and full reporting of results to improve the quality of RCTs submitted hereafter for publication in the KJA.

AB - Bias affects the true intervention effect in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), making the results unreliable. We evaluated the risk of bias (ROB) of quasi-RCTs or RCTs reported in the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology (KJA) between 2010 and 2016. Six kinds of bias (selection, performance, detection, attrition, reporting, and other biases) were evaluated by determining low, unclear, or high ROB for eight domains (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants, blinding of personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other bias) according to publication year. We identified 296 quasi-RCTs or RCTs. Random sequence generation was performed better than allocation concealment (51.7% vs. 20.9% for the proportion of low ROB, P < 0.001 and P = 0.943 for trend, respectively). Blinding of outcome assessment was superior to blinding of participants and personnel (42.9% vs. 15.5% and 23.0% for the proportion of low ROB, P = 0.026 vs. P = 0.003 and 0.896 for trend, respectively). Handling of incomplete outcome data was performed best with the highest proportion of low ROB (84.8%). Selective reporting had the lowest proportion of low ROB (4.7%). However, the ROB improved year by year (P < 0.001 for trend). Authors and reviewers should consider allocation concealment after random sequence generation, blinding of participants and personnel, and full reporting of results to improve the quality of RCTs submitted hereafter for publication in the KJA.

KW - Bias

KW - Publishing

KW - Quality analysis

KW - Randomized controlled trial

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032275316&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85032275316&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4097/kjae.2017.70.5.511

DO - 10.4097/kjae.2017.70.5.511

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85032275316

VL - 70

SP - 511

EP - 519

JO - Korean Journal of Anesthesiology

JF - Korean Journal of Anesthesiology

SN - 2005-6419

IS - 5

ER -