Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Fulltext Do not neglect the indigenous peoples when reporting health and nutrition issues of the socio-economically disadvantaged populations in Malaysia
    Khor GL, Shariff ZM
    BMC Public Health, 2019 Dec 16;19(1):1685.
    PMID: 31842826 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-8055-8
    The purpose of this correspondence is to express our disappointment with the coverage of the BMC Public Health supplement: Vol 19 (4) titled "Health and Nutritional Issues Among Low Income Population in Malaysia", which neglected to include the fundamental health and nutrition issues that are adversely affecting the lives and livelihood of the indigenous peoples. The Supplement comprised 21 papers. Two of these papers included indigenous peoples as study subjects. These two papers addressed peripheral, albeit important health issues, namely visual impairment and quality of life, and not the persistent and rising health concerns impacting this population. We will provide evidence from research and reports to justify our critique that the Supplement missed the opportunity to spotlight on the serious extent of the health and nutritional deprivations of the indigenous peoples of Malaysia. As researchers of the indigenous peoples, we ought to lend our voice to the "silenced minority" by highlighting their plight in the media including scientific journals.
    Matched MeSH terms: Research Report/standards*
  2. Clinical replicability of rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials reported in main journals is inadequate
    Negrini S, Arienti C, Pollet J, Engkasan JP, Francisco GE, Frontera WR, et al.
    J Clin Epidemiol, 2019 10;114:108-117.
    PMID: 31220570 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.06.008
    OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to study if randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in rehabilitation (a field where complex interventions prevail) published in main journals include all the details needed to replicate the intervention in clinical practice (clinical replicability).

    STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Forty-seven rehabilitation clinicians of 5 professions from 7 teams (Belgium, Italy, Malaysia, Pakistan, Poland, Puerto Rico, the USA) reviewed 76 RCTs published by main rehabilitation journals exploring 14 domains chosen through consensus and piloting.

    RESULTS: The response rate was 99%. Inter-rater agreement was moderate/good. All clinicians considered unanimously 12 (16%) RCTs clinically replicable and none not replicable. At least one "absent" information was found by all participants in 60 RCTs (79%), and by a minimum of 85% in the remaining 16 (21%). Information considered to be less well described (8-19% "perfect" information) included two providers (skills, experience) and two delivery (cautions, relationships) items. The best described (50-79% "perfect") were the classic methodological items included in CONSORT (descending order: participants, materials, procedures, setting, and intervention).

    CONCLUSION: Clinical replicability must be considered in RCTs reporting, particularly for complex interventions. Classical methodological checklists such as CONSORT are not enough, and also Template for Intervention Description and Clinical replication do not cover all the requirements. This study supports the need for field-specific checklists.

    Matched MeSH terms: Research Report/standards
Related Terms
    Try searching for something
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links