Onychomycosis: Quality of Studies

Aditya K. Gupta1,2, Jennifer E Ryder1, Robyn Bluhm1, Andrew M. Johnson3, Richard C. Summerbell4
1Mediprobe Laboratories Inc., London, Ontario, Canada
2Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, Sunnybrook and Women’s College Health Science Center (Sunnybrook site) and the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
3Faculty of Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
4Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures, Baarn, The Netherlands

Tóm tắt

Objective:The quality of original clinical trial publications pertaining to the use of oral antifungal agents to treat onychomycosis was evaluated using predetermined criteria.Methods:The list of studies included in this analysis was determined by conducting a search in Medline. For each clinical trial, two independent reviewers each determined a composite score by evaluating a list of criteria that were felt to represent a good study, for example, randomization and blinding, prior sample size calculated, and treatment regimen clearly explained. A citation count was performed to determine whether higher-quality papers were cited more often than lower-quality papers.Results:Forty-five studies were included in this quality analysis of study design. Of these, 27 were considered to be “high quality” (score greater than or equal to 11 out of 20). A significant correlation coefficient of 0.997 was found between the two reviewers ( P < 0.00001). Higher-quality papers were cited significantly more often than lower-quality papers ( P = 0.03).Conclusion:The scale that we use to evaluate the quality of onychomycosis studies has high interrater reliability. According to this scale, many published studies (18 out of 45) pertaining to treatments for onychomycosis do not meet the criteria required to be considered “high quality.”

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1001/archfami.7.6.587

10.1001/jama.285.15.1992

10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030

10.1001/archderm.136.3.381

10.1177/070674379804301008

10.1161/01.STR.29.10.2203

10.1001/jama.285.15.1987

10.1016/S0190-9622(98)70486-4

10.3109/09546639709160278

10.1136/bmj.311.7010.919

10.1111/j.1365-2133.1997.tb03662.x

10.1001/archderm.1995.01690200057011

10.1016/S0190-9622(96)90519-8

10.1016/S0190-9622(97)70111-7

10.1080/09546630050517658

Elewski BE, 1997, Cutis, 59, 217

10.1016/0190-9622(95)91815-9

10.1001/archderm.1996.03890250044008

Svejgaard EL, 1997, Acta Derm Venereol, 77, 66, 10.2340/0001555555776669

De Backer M, 1994, International Perspective on Lamisil (Series: CCT Healthcare Congress and Symposium: No 101), 39

10.1136/bmj.304.6835.1151

10.1111/j.1365-2133.1992.tb00008.x

10.1046/j.1365-2133.2000.03247.x

10.1067/mjd.2001.110644

10.1080/000155599750011020

10.1136/bmj.318.7190.1031

10.1111/j.1365-2133.1997.tb14902.x

10.1016/S0190-9622(96)80057-0

10.1111/j.1346-8138.1996.tb04009.x

10.1159/000017905

10.1016/S0190-9622(98)70492-X

10.1016/S0190-9622(98)70490-6

10.1111/j.1365-2133.1996.tb15653.x

10.1128/AAC.37.10.2064

10.1016/0190-9622(95)91815-9

10.1111/j.1365-4362.1996.tb03667.x

10.1111/j.1439-0507.1998.tb00716.x

10.1159/000018177

10.3109/09546639209088703

De Doncker P, 1995, Cutis, 56, 180

10.1111/j.1365-2133.1992.tb00009.x

10.7547/87507315-91-3-127

Honeyman JF, 1997, J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol, 9, 215, 10.1111/j.1468-3083.1997.tb00505.x

10.1016/S0011-393X(97)80040-9

10.1111/j.1365-4362.1996.tb03666.x

10.1111/j.1439-0507.1998.tb00330.x

10.3109/09546639909056039

Svejgaard E., 1985, Acta Derm Venereol, 65, 143, 10.2340/0001555565143149

10.1016/0190-9622(95)91454-4

10.1111/j.1365-4362.1995.tb03600.x

10.1111/j.1439-0507.1998.tb00379.x

10.1002/bjs.1800720403

10.1046/j.1365-4362.1997.00349.x

Jadad A. Randomised Controlled Trials. City: BMJ Books, 1998, pp 1–119.

10.1016/S0190-9622(96)80053-3

Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: 1st ed. Chapman and Hall, 1991, pp 440–476.

Bland M. An Introduction to Medical Statistics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, pp 331–341.

10.1001/archinte.1996.00440060089011