Article
Assessing Quality and Risk of Bias in Experimental Studies on Clinical Nursing
| e-ISSN | 2288-775X |
| Received | 2018-11-30 |
| Revised | 2018-12-04 |
| Accepted | 2018-12-26 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.54003/kebn.2018.6.1.22 |
| Metrics | Views 0 / Downloads 0 |
Abstract
Purpose: This study was conducted in order to explore quality assessment tools applicable to research in the nursing area and to suggest the results of applying such tools in assessing the quality of experimental studies in nursing. Methods: We selected three experimental and 119 quasi-experimental studies with control groups in the Journal of Korean Clinical Nursing Research. We applied Cochran collaboration’s tool for assessing the quality of randomized controlled studies. Also, items developed by researchers were applied for assessing the quality of experimental studies in nursing. Results: Three studies (2.5%) used an adequate randomized sequence generation and two of them concealed the allocation sequence. The 63.1% of the studies applied blinding and 51% of the studies did not have missing values, or had insignificant missing values. In addition, 85.2% were not likely to report selectively, and 36.1% were assessed to have raised the risk of bias. Conclusion: Many studies had too a high risk of bias to be used as evidence-based data in the designs and methods of experimental studies. We found that it is necessary to inquire into research designs, methods, and quality assessment tools desirable for evidence-based practice in nursing.