RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts published in journal articles have traditionally been deficient of crucial information. To improve the quality of RCT abstracts, in January 2008, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial (CONSORT) group published a checklist of essential information for inclusion. The current study assessed whether there has been an improvement in the quality of RCT abstracts published in main anaesthesia journals since this new guideline was introduced. METHODS: Articles involving human RCTs published in four high-profile anaesthesia journals (Anaesthesia, Anesthesia & Analgesia, Anesthesiology and the European Journal of Anaesthesiology) were reviewed, comparing those published from October 2005 to September 2006 (pre-CONSORT abstracts) with those published from October 2008 to September 2009 (post-CONSORT abstracts). Trials involving healthy volunteers or cadavers, cost-effectiveness studies, meta-analyses and letters were excluded. Abstracts from remaining RCTs were randomly assigned to four reviewers in a blinded fashion and reviewed for content using the new CONSORT checklist. RESULTS: In total, 527 RCT abstracts (pre-CONSORT RCTs, n = 275 and post-CONSORT RCTs, n = 252) were analysed. The majority of abstracts in both groups provided an appropriate description of study interventions (73.1 and 73.8%, pre-CONSORT abstracts versus post-CONSORT abstracts, respectively), objective (91.3 and 90.1%) and conclusions (72.4 and 66.3%). From pre-CONSORT to post-CONSORT guidelines for abstract reporting, there were significant improvements in correctly identifying blinding (18.2-29%) and harmful effects (31.6-42.1%). The improvement in reporting the nature of the trial in abstract titles (20.1-29%) and primary outcome measure in the methods section (22.9-30.6%) did not reach significance. There was no clear improvement in the already poor reporting of trial design, participants, randomisation, recruitment, outcomes, trial registration and funding sources. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some promising improvements and inter-journal differences, the overall quality of RCT abstracts and adherence to the CONSORT checklist for abstracts remains poor.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to investigate whether the combination of low-dose (0.25 mg kg(-1)) midazolam premedication with parental presence can effectively reduce anxiety at induction as well as provide a smoother emergence. METHODS: Institutional ethics committee approval and informed consent from one of the parents were obtained prior to the study. Sixty ASA grade I or II children undergoing surgery were enrolled in the study. Children were randomized to receive either 0.5 mg kg(-1) midazolam orally (group M) or 0.25 mg kg(-1) midazolam orally with parental presence (group MP) or parental presence alone (group P). The child's anxiety and sedation scores were evaluated as 1-4 points on the Anxiety Scale and as 0-4 points on the University of Michigan Sedation Scale (UMSS), respectively, at the entrance to the operating room and for tolerance to the face mask. Heart rate, the mean arterial blood pressure and O2 saturation (%) were assessed at repeated intervals before and after induction. At the end of surgery, the child's Anxiety Scale score, UMSS score, Observer's Pain Scale (OPS) score and FLACC score were also assessed. RESULTS: There were no differences between groups in demographic variables and duration of surgery or anaesthesia. Mean blood pressure changes were similar between groups at measured intervals, but the heart rate was higher in group M before and after induction of anaesthesia (P<0.05). UMSS score was greater in both midazolam groups (groups M and MP) in the preoperative period (P<0.05). Anxiety Scale scores for anxiolysis were higher in groups M and MP than in group P (less anxious and more sedated) at 20 min after premedication, at the entrance to the operating room and at mask tolerance time points (P<0.05). During recovery there was no significant difference in sedation, recovery scores or behavioural anxiety assessment between groups, Anxiety Scale score, UMSS score, FLACC score, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score and Observer's Pain Scale score in groups MP, M and P. CONCLUSION: Preoperative administration of midazolam 0.5 mg kg(-1) for premedication alone, without parental presence at induction, and that of low-dose midazolam 0.25 mg kg(-1) for premedication with parental presence at induction are both equally effective in reducing separation anxiety and providing a smooth emergence. However, parental presence alone, without midazolam for premedication, is not an adequate approach for this outcome. If the environment for parental presence is convenient, the dose of midazolam may be reduced and induction and emergence conditions may still be of high quality.

Asunto(s)