World Rural Health Conference
Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Users Online: 3159
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 7  |  Page : 2179-2183

Bias in clinical trials into the effects of complementary and alternative medicine therapies on hemodialysis patients


1 Department of Nursing, Trauma Nursing Research Center, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran
2 Department of Nursing and Midwifery, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Prof. Mohsen Adib-Hajbaghery
Department of Nursing, Trauma Nursing Research Center, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_186_19

Rights and Permissions

Background: Chronic renal failure is among the major health challenges in the world. Many clinical trials have been conducted to assess the effects of complementary and alternative therapies on hemodialysis-related outcomes. However, a number of biases may affect the results of these studies. Aims: This study aimed to assess biases in randomized clinical trials into the effects of complementary and alternative therapies on hemodialysis patients. Settings and Design: A critical review on clinical trials into the effects of complementary and alternative therapies therapies on hemodialysis patients. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted on 114 randomized clinical trials which had been published in 2012–2017 into the effects of complementary and alternative therapies on hemodialysis patients. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was employed to assess biases in the included trials. The collected data were presented using the measures of descriptive statistics, namely absolute and relative frequencies. Results: Among 114 included trials, 71.05% (81 trials) had used low bias methods for random sequence generation, while 60.52% (69 trials) had provided no clear information about allocation concealment. Moreover, respecting blinding, 57.89% of trials (66 trials) were low bias. Around 60.52% of trials (69 trials) had no attrition between randomization and final follow-up assessment and 84.21% (96 trials) had apparently reported all intended outcomes. Conclusions: This study shows that 50% of randomized clinical trials into the effects of complementary and alternative therapies on hemodialysis patients have low bias. Yet, quality improvement is still needed to produce more conclusive evidence.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed247    
    Printed14    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded70    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal