Home > EBM・最近のTOPICS > 日常臨床に研究成果を活用するために (PAGE 6)

より良い論文執筆とクリティカル・リーディングのためのガイドライン
『日常臨床に研究成果を活用するために』

6. おわりに

 多くの研究は、患者さんに役立つためという、誠実な信念の基に実施されていると思います。このような研究を行うには、莫大な資源 (多くの人の協力、研究を実施するための物品、それらを準備する資金) を投資しなければなりません。せっかく、多くの資源を投資しているのに、最終的に、論文という形式で公開する際に、研究成果を適切に報告していなくては、もったいないと言えるでしょう。
 本論では、(1) 研究成果を適切に報告するためのガイドラインを紹介し、(2) 日常臨床に研究成果を活用する前に参考になる、研究の質を評価するためのツールを紹介しました。患者さんに役立つためという誠実な信念が、有効に伝えられるための一助になればと願っています。

引用文献
  • 1) Moher D, Dulberg CS, Wells GA: Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 272: 122-124, 1994
  • 2) How CONSORT began. (http://www.consort-statement.org/index.aspx?o=1210)
  • 3) Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al: Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 276: 637-639, 1996
  • 4) Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al: Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 354: 1896-1900, 1999 (http://www.consort-statement.org/index.aspx?o=1346)
  • 5) 津谷喜一郎, 折笠秀樹, 熊井智子. QUOROM 声明によるメタアナリシス論文を投稿する際のチェックリスト. (http://homepage3.nifty.com/cont/QUOROM_Statement/QUOROM_chk_Jap.pdf)
  • 6) Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al: Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283: 2008-2012, 2000 (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/283/15/2008)
  • 7) 中山健夫, 津谷喜一郎. 疫学分野における観察研究のメタアナリシス: 報告のための提案. 2005. (http://homepage3.nifty.com/cont/MOOSE/MOOSE_chk_Jap.pdf)
  • 8) Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG: The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 134: 657-662, 2001 (http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/134/8/657.pdf)
  • 9) Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al: The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 134: 663-694, 2001 (http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/134/8/663.pdf)
  • 10) 津谷喜一郎, 小島千枝, 中山健夫. CONSORT声明: ランダム化並行群間比較試験報告の質向上のための改訂版勧告. 2002. (http://www.consort-statement.org/index.aspx?o=1333)
  • 11) Campbell MJ: Extending CONSORT to include cluster trials. BMJ 328: 654-655, 2004 (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/328/7441/654)
  • 12) Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, et al: Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA 295: 1152-1160, 2006 (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/295/10/1152)
  • 13) Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, et al: Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ 337: a2390, 2008 (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/337/nov11_2/a2390)
  • 14) Gagnier JJ, Boon H, Rochon P, et al: Reporting randomized, controlled trials of herbal interventions: an elaborated CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 144: 364-367, 2006 (http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/144/5/364.pdf)
  • 15) Gagnier JJ, Boon H, Rochon P, et al: Recommendations for reporting randomized controlled trials of herbal interventions: Explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 59: 1134-1149, 2006 (http://www.consort-statement.org/index.aspx?o=1325)
  • 16) Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, et al: Methods and processes of the CONSORT Group: example of an extension for trials assessing nonpharmacologic treatments. Ann Intern Med 148: W60-66, 2008 (http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/148/4/W-60.pdf)
  • 17) Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, et al: Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 148: 295-309, 2008 (http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/148/4/295.pdf)
  • 18) Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gotzsche PC, et al: Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 141: 781-788, 2004 (http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/141/10/781.pdf)
  • 19) Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, et al: CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts. Lancet 371: 281-283, 2008 (http://www.consort-statement.org/index.aspx?o=1412)
  • 20) Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, et al: CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 5: e20, 2008 (http://medicine.plosjournals.org/archive/1549-1676/5/1/pdf/10.1371_journal.pmed.0050020-L.pdf)
  • 21) Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N: Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health 94: 361-366, 2004 (http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/94/3/361)
  • 22) von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med 4: e296, 2007 (http://medicine.plosjournals.org/archive/1549-1676/4/10/pdf/10.1371_journal.pmed.0040296-L.pdf)
  • 23) Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, et al: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 4: e297, 2007 (http://medicine.plosjournals.org/archive/1549-1676/4/10/pdf/10.1371_journal.pmed.0040297-L.pdf)
  • 24) 上岡洋晴, 津谷喜一郎. 疫学における観察研究の報告の強化 (STROBE声明): 観察研究の報告に関するガイドライン. (http://www.strobe-statement.org/fileadmin/PDF_hochladen/STROBE-Japanese.pdf)
  • 25) Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al: Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. Ann Intern Med 138: 40-44, 2003 (http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/138/1/40.pdf)
  • 26) Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al: The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 138: W1-12, 2003 (http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/138/1/W1.pdf)
  • 27) Fung AE, Palanki R, Bakri SJ, et al: Applying the CONSORT and STROBE statements to evaluate the reporting quality of neovascular age-related macular degeneration studies. Ophthalmology 116: 286-296, 2009
  • 28) Shea B, Dube C, Moher D. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews: the QUOROM statement compared to other tools. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London, UK: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001. p. 122-139.
  • 29) Olivo SA, Macedo LG, Gadotti IC, et al: Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. Phys Ther 88: 156-175, 2008
  • 30) Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JP: Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 36: 666-676, 2007
  • 31) Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al: Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 7: 10, 2007
  • 32) van Tulder MW, Assendelft WJ, Koes BW, et al: Method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group for Spinal Disorders. Spine 22: 2323-2330, 1997
  • 33) Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. (http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm)
  • 34) Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, et al: The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 3: 25, 2003
  • 35) Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al: AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, in press