[논문]한국 물리치료 학술지에 무작위대조연구의 비뚤림 위험 평가: 2018~2022년 검토

임재현; 박치복; 김병근

doi:10.26862/jkpts.2023.12.30.4.82

[국내논문] 한국 물리치료 학술지에 무작위대조연구의 비뚤림 위험 평가: 2018~2022년 검토
TheAssessment of risk of bias in randomized controlled trials published in the Korean Journal of Physical Therapy: A 2018~2022 review 원문보기

대한물리치료과학회지 = Journal of Korean Physical Therapy Science, v.30 no.4, 2023년, pp.82 - 91

임재현 (남부대학교 대학원 물리치료학과) , 박치복 (남부대학교 물리치료학과) , 김병근 (남부대학교 물리치료학과)

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide evidence on the effectiveness and safety of interventions and inform systematic reviews and guideline preparation for clinical application. However, methodological flaws can occur in many RCTs, and Cochrane's risk of bias version 2 (RoB2) can be used to evaluate RCTs' risk of bias (RoB). However, physical therapy RCTs in Korea did not confirm RoB. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate RoB using RoB2 in RCTs published in the Korean Physical Therapy Journal. Design: Review. Methods: The RCTs subject to evaluation were RCTs published in 11 physical therapy journals in Korea from 2018 to 2022. RoB2 evaluated a total of five domains: bias arising from the randomization process, bias due to deviations from intended interventions, bias due to missing outcome data, bias in measurement of the outcome, and bias in selection of the reported result. Results: A total of 616 RCTs were evaluated. As for bias arising from the randomization process, high risk was the highest at 555 (90.1%), followed by low risk at 41 (6.7%) and some concerns at 20 (3.2%). For bias due to deviations from intended interventions, the proportion of some concerns was the highest at 390 (63.3%), followed by high risk at 218 (35.4%) and low risk at 8 (1.3%). As for the bias due to missing outcome data, the rate of low risk was the highest at 399 (64.8%), followed by high risk at 159 (25.8%) and some concerns at 58 (9.4%). As for bias in measurement of the outcome, high risk was the highest at 294 (47.7%), followed by low risk at 224 (36.4%) and some concerns at 98 (15.9%). In the bias due to missing outcome data, the ratio of high risk was the highest at 610 (99%), followed by low risk at 4 (0.7%) and some concerns at 2 (0.3%). Conclusion: Most of the RoB evaluation results of RCTs published in the Korean Physical Therapy Journal were rated as high risk. Methodological quality of RCTs needs to be improved.

Keyword

참고문헌 (20)

김형근, 하현근, 배영현. 물리치료 기술 개발 방향 정립을 위한 세부 연구 분야 우선순위 도출. 대한물리치료과학회지. 2022;29(1):15-29.
이윤재, 장보형, 고호연, 등. 한의학 관련 무작위배정비교임상연구의 비뚤림 위험 평가. 대한한방부인과학회지？2011;24(4):105-113.
Angelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of？Medical Journal Editors. Lancet 2004;364(9438):911-912.

상세보기
Armijo-Olivo S, Saltaji H, da Costa BR, et al. What is the influence of randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment on treatment effects of physical therapy trials? A meta-epidemiological study. BMJ Open？2015;5(9):e008562.
Auleley GR, Giraudeau B, Baron G, et al. The methods for handling missing data in clinical trials influence sample？size requirements. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57(5):447-453.

상세보기
Bhide A, Shah PS, Acharya G. A simplified guide to randomized controlled trials. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand？2018;97(4):380-387.

상세보기
Cho Y, Kim C, Kang B. Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials referenced in the 2015 American Heart？Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care: a cross-sectional review. BMJ Open 2019;9(5):e023725.
Dechartres A, Trinquart L, Atal I, et al. Evolution of poor reporting and inadequate methods over time in 20 920 randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane reviews: research on research study. BMJ 2017;357:j2490.
Endres S, Badura A. Shield kyphoplasty through a unipedicular approach compared to vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty in osteoporotic thoracolumbar fracture: a prospective randomized study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res？2012;98(3):334-340.

상세보기
Gardenier JS, Resnik DB. The misuse of statistics: concepts, tools, and a research agenda. Account Res 2002;9(2):65-74.

상세보기
Hariton E, Locascio JJ. Randomised controlled trials - the gold standard for effectiveness research: Study design: randomised controlled trials. BJOG 2018;125(13):1716.

상세보기
Hrobjartsson A, Thomsen AS, Emanuelsson F, et al. Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes:？systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors. BMJ 2012;344:e1119.

상세보기
Hrobjartsson A, Thomsen AS, Emanuelsson F, et al. Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale？outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors. CMAJ？2013;185(4):E201-E211.

상세보기
Kahan BC, Rehal S, Cro S. Blinded Outcome Assessment Was Infrequently Used and Poorly Reported in Open Trials.？PLoS One 2015;10(6):e0131926.

상세보기
Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet？2014;383(9912):101-104.
Moseley AM, Rahman P, Wells GA, et al. Agreement between the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Physiotherapy？Evidence Database (PEDro) scale: A meta-epidemiological study of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions. PLoS One 2019;14(9):e0222770.

상세보기
Scott A, Rucklidge JJ, Mulder RT. Is Mandatory Prospective Trial Registration Working to Prevent Publication of？Unregistered Trials and Selective Outcome Reporting? An Observational Study of Five Psychiatry Journals That？Mandate Prospective Clinical Trial Registration. PLos One 2015;10(8):e0133718.
Simundic AM. Bias in research. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2013;23(1):12-15.

상세보기
Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ？2019;366:l4898.
Vinkers CH, Lamberink HJ, Tijdink JK, et al. The methodological quality of 176,620 randomized controlled trials published between 1966 and 2018 reveals a positive trend but also an urgent need for improvement. PLoS Biol？2021;19(4):e3001162.

저자의 다른 논문 :

활용도 분석정보

상세보기

다운로드

내보내기

활용도 Top5 논문

해당 논문의 주제분야에서 활용도가 높은 상위 5개 콘텐츠를 보여줍니다.
더보기 버튼을 클릭하시면 더 많은 관련자료를 살펴볼 수 있습니다.

내보내기 구분	파일저장 인쇄 메일전송
구성항목	기본정보 상세정보 관리번호, 논문명, 저널/프로시딩명, 저자 , 발행년, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, 발행기관 관리번호, 논문명, 대등논문명, 저자 , 저널/프로시딩명, 발행기관, 발행년, 발행언어, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, ISBN, ISSN, 주제분야, 키워드, 초록(한글), 초록(영문), 저자(소속기관)
저장형식	Text(ASCII format) Excel format RefWorks Direct Export RIS format (for Reference Manager, ProCite, EndNote), Scholar's Aids, Mendeley
메일정보	받는사람 (필수) @ 보내는사람 (선택) @ 제목 내용 KISTI 검색결과 이메일 서비스
안내	총 건의 자료가 검색되었습니다. 다운받으실 자료의 인덱스를 입력하세요. (1-10,000) 검색결과의 순서대로 최대 10,000건 까지 다운로드가 가능합니다. 데이타가 많을 경우 속도가 느려질 수 있습니다.(최대 2~3분 소요) 다운로드 파일은 UTF-8 형태로 저장됩니다. 파일의 내용이 제대로 보이지 않을실 때는 웹브라우저 상단의 보기 -> 인코딩 -> 자동선택 여부를 확인하십시오. ~ Text(ASCII format) Excel format

연합인증

[국내논문] 한국 물리치료 학술지에 무작위대조연구의 비뚤림 위험 평가: 2018~2022년 검토
TheAssessment of risk of bias in randomized controlled trials published in the Korean Journal of Physical Therapy: A 2018~2022 review 원문보기

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

Keyword

참고문헌 (20)

이 논문을 인용한 문헌

저자의 다른 논문 :

활용도 분석정보

활용도 Top5 논문

관련 콘텐츠

원문 보기

원문 URL 링크

오픈액세스(OA) 유형

이 논문과 함께 이용한 콘텐츠

AI-Helper ※ AI-Helper는 오픈소스 모델을 사용합니다.

선택된 텍스트

연합인증

[국내논문] 한국 물리치료 학술지에 무작위대조연구의 비뚤림 위험 평가: 2018~2022년 검토 TheAssessment of risk of bias in randomized controlled trials published in the Korean Journal of Physical Therapy: A 2018~2022 review 원문보기

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

Keyword

참고문헌 (20)

이 논문을 인용한 문헌

저자의 다른 논문 :

박치복 (5)

활용도 분석정보

활용도 Top5 논문 더보기

관련 콘텐츠

원문 보기

원문 URL 링크

오픈액세스(OA) 유형

이 논문과 함께 이용한 콘텐츠

AI-Helper ※ AI-Helper는 오픈소스 모델을 사용합니다.

선택된 텍스트

[국내논문] 한국 물리치료 학술지에 무작위대조연구의 비뚤림 위험 평가: 2018~2022년 검토
TheAssessment of risk of bias in randomized controlled trials published in the Korean Journal of Physical Therapy: A 2018~2022 review 원문보기

활용도 Top5 논문