randomized controlled trials as topic

随机对照试验作为主题
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    美国骨科医师学会(AAOS)制定了前交叉韧带(ACL)损伤治疗的临床实践指南(CPG)。诸如随机对照试验(RCTs)之类的主要研究被引用为指南的证据。鉴于这些试验对患者护理的影响,遵守进行和报告RCT的标准化协议至关重要。
    评估CONSORT(报告试验综合标准)对RCT的危害相关报告的扩展,这些报告被引用为AAOSCPG关于ACL撕裂管理的支持证据。
    横断面研究。
    首先针对CPG中引用的RCT筛选了AAOS指南中关于ACL撕裂的参考部分。接下来,评估每个RCT对CONSORT扩展的危害检查表的依从性.RCT的鉴定和依从性的评估均在掩蔽和重复过程中进行。描述性统计数据用于总结对危害项目的CONSORT扩展的依从性。进行了Pearson相关性检验,以评估发表年份与坚持CONSORT危害报告之间的关系。
    样本包括113个随机对照试验,其中16项(14.2%)是在2004年实施CONSORT“危害扩展”之前发布的。样本量从24到4564名参与者不等,平均228。所包括的RCT均不包括CONSORT扩展的危害清单中的所有18个项目。报告的核对表项目的平均数量为4个(18个;22.2%)。一个温和的,积极的,发现RCT发表年份与CONSORT扩展报告的依从性之间有统计学意义的相关性(t111=3.54;P<.001)(r=0.32;95%CI,0.14-0.47)。
    在AAOSCPG中被引用为ACL撕裂管理的支持证据的RCT中很少报道危害。一个令人鼓舞的发现是RCT发表的年份与它们对报告危害的坚持程度之间存在正相关。有必要努力改善不良事件报告,因为RCT通常用于骨科手术的临床决策。
    UNASSIGNED: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) has developed a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for management of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. Primary studies such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are cited as evidence for the guidelines. Given the influence that these trials have on patient care, adherence to standardized protocols for conducting and reporting RCTs is essential.
    UNASSIGNED: To evaluate the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Extension for Harms-related reporting of RCTs cited as supporting evidence for the AAOS CPG on the management of ACL tears.
    UNASSIGNED: Cross-sectional study.
    UNASSIGNED: The reference section of the AAOS guideline for ACL tears was first screened for RCTs cited in the CPG. Next, each RCT was evaluated for adherence to the CONSORT Extension for Harms checklist. Both identification of RCTs and assessment of adherence were performed in a masked and duplicate process. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize adherence to CONSORT Extension for Harms items. A Pearson correlation test was conducted to assess the relationship between the year of publication and adherence to CONSORT harms reporting.
    UNASSIGNED: The sample included 113 RCTs, of which 16 (14.2%) were published before the CONSORT Extension for Harms was implemented in 2004. Sample sizes ranged from 24 to 4564 participants, with a mean of 228. None of the included RCTs included all 18 items in the CONSORT Extension for Harms checklist. The mean number of checklist items reported was 4 (of 18; 22.2%). A moderate, positive, and statistically significant correlation was found between the RCT publication year and the adherence with reporting of the CONSORT Extension for Harms (t111 = 3.54; P < .001) (r = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.14-0.47).
    UNASSIGNED: Harms were infrequently reported in RCTs cited as supporting evidence in the AAOS CPG for the management of ACL tears. One encouraging finding was the positive correlation between the year when RCTs were published and how well they adhered to reporting harms. Efforts to improve adverse event reporting are warranted, as RCTs are commonly used to make clinical decisions in orthopaedic surgery.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:系统性硬化症(SSc)是一种罕见的具有异质性表现的慢性自身免疫性疾病。在过去的十年里,已经进行了几项临床试验来评估SSc的新治疗方案.这项工作的目的是根据可用于SSc药理学管理的新证据更新巴西风湿病学会的建议。
    方法:系统综述,包括根据患者/人群阐述的预定义问题的随机临床试验(RCT),干预,比较,和结果(PICO)战略进行。可用证据的评级是根据建议评估的等级进行的,开发和评估(等级)方法。成为一个推荐,至少需要75%的投票小组同意。
    结果:阐述了关于雷诺现象的药物治疗的六项建议,治疗(愈合)和预防数字溃疡,皮肤受累,根据RCT的结果,SSc患者的间质性肺病(ILD)和胃肠道受累。新药,如利妥昔单抗,作为皮肤受累的治疗选择,利妥昔单抗,托珠单抗和尼达尼布被纳入ILD的治疗方案.根据投票小组的专家意见,详细阐述了硬皮病肾危象和肌肉骨骼受累的药物治疗建议,因为没有发现安慰剂对照的随机对照试验。
    结论:本指南根据文献证据和专家意见更新并纳入新的SSc治疗方案。为临床实践决策提供支持。
    BACKGROUND: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a rare chronic autoimmune disease with heterogeneous manifestations. In the last decade, several clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate new treatment options for SSc. The purpose of this work is to update the recommendations of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology in light of the new evidence available for the pharmacological management of SSc.
    METHODS: A systematic review including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for predefined questions that were elaborated according to the Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) strategy was conducted. The rating of the available evidence was performed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. To become a recommendation, at least 75% agreement of the voting panel was needed.
    RESULTS: Six recommendations were elaborated regarding the pharmacological treatment of Raynaud\'s phenomenon, the treatment (healing) and prevention of digital ulcers, skin involvement, interstitial lung disease (ILD) and gastrointestinal involvement in SSc patients based on results available from RCTs. New drugs, such as rituximab, were included as therapeutic options for skin involvement, and rituximab, tocilizumab and nintedanib were included as therapeutic options for ILD. Recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of scleroderma renal crisis and musculoskeletal involvement were elaborated based on the expert opinion of the voting panel, as no placebo-controlled RCTs were found.
    CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines updated and incorporated new treatment options for the management of SSc based on evidence from the literature and expert opinion regarding SSc, providing support for decision-making in clinical practice.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:本文探讨了左主干血运重建的最新进展,重点评估最新的美国和欧洲指南。
    结果:来自4项针对左主干冠状动脉狭窄的主要随机对照试验(RCT)的最新汇总数据分析表明,CABG在避免主要不良心血管事件方面优于PCI。尽管在5年时观察到的死亡率没有显着差异。其他数据支持CABG用于左心室功能障碍患者,复杂的左主要病变,弥漫性冠状动脉疾病,和糖尿病。
    结论:支持每种血运重建方式(PCI与CABG)指南的数据必须考虑病变复杂性等因素,糖尿病,和左心室功能障碍。此外,必须根据这些血运重建技术的最新进展来确定指南所依据的四个主要RCT的结果.
    OBJECTIVE: This article explores recent developments in left main revascularization, with a focus on appraising the latest American and European guidelines.
    RESULTS: Recent pooled data analysis from four major randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for left main coronary artery stenosis indicate an advantage for CABG over PCI in regard to freedom from major adverse cardiovascular events, despite no significant difference in mortality observed at 5 years. Additional data support the use of CABG for patients with left ventricular dysfunction, complex left main lesions, diffuse coronary disease, and diabetes.
    CONCLUSIONS: The data underpinning the guidelines on each revascularization modality (PCI versus CABG) must consider factors such as lesion complexity, diabetes, and left ventricular dysfunction. Additionally, the findings of the four major RCTs upon which the guidelines are based must be ascertained in light of the latest advancements in these revascularization techniques.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:乳腺癌化疗可导致中性粒细胞减少,增加发热性中性粒细胞减少症(FN)和严重感染的风险。已探索使用粒细胞集落刺激因子(G-CSF)作为初级预防来减轻这些风险。评价原发性G-CSF预防化疗对浸润性乳腺癌患者的疗效和安全性。
    方法:根据“临床实践指南开发思想手册”,使用PubMed进行了系统的文献综述,Ichushi-Web,和Cochrane图书馆数据库.包括随机对照试验(RCT)和队列研究,评估使用G-CSF作为浸润性乳腺癌的初级预防。主要结果是总生存率(OS)和FN发生率。对具有足够数据的结果进行Meta分析。
    结果:8项RCT纳入定性分析,5个RCT对FN发生率进行荟萃分析。荟萃分析显示,初次预防G-CSF的FN发生率显着降低(风险差异[RD]=0.22,95%CI:0.01-0.43,p=0.04)。G-CSF改善OS的证据尚无定论。四个随机对照试验表明,G-CSF有增加疼痛的趋势,但未报告有统计学意义.
    结论:强烈建议接受化疗的乳腺癌患者主要预防性使用G-CSF,因为它已被证明可以降低FN的发生率。虽然对操作系统的影响尚不清楚,减少FN的益处被认为大于疼痛增加的潜在危害.
    BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy for breast cancer can cause neutropenia, increasing the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) and serious infections. The use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) as primary prophylaxis has been explored to mitigate these risks. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of primary G-CSF prophylaxis in patients with invasive breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy.
    METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted according to the \"Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development\" using PubMed, Ichushi-Web, and the Cochrane Library databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies assessing using G-CSF as primary prophylaxis in invasive breast cancer were included. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and FN incidence. Meta-analyses were performed for outcomes with sufficient data.
    RESULTS: Eight RCTs were included in the qualitative analysis, and five RCTs were meta-analyzed for FN incidence. The meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in FN incidence with primary G-CSF prophylaxis (risk difference [RD] = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.01-0.43, p = 0.04). Evidence for improvement in OS with G-CSF was inconclusive. Four RCTs suggested a tendency for increased pain with G-CSF, but statistical significance was not reported.
    CONCLUSIONS: Primary prophylactic use of G-CSF is strongly recommended for breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, as it has been shown to reduce the incidence of FN. While the impact on OS is unclear, the benefits of reducing FN are considered to outweigh the potential harm of increased pain.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:为狼疮性肾炎(LN)的诊断和治疗制定第二个以证据为基础的巴西风湿病学会共识。
    方法:巴西风湿病学会LupusCommittee的两名方法学专家和20名风湿病学家参与了本指南的制定。定义了14个PICO问题,并进行了系统评价。对符合条件的随机对照试验进行了关于肾脏完全缓解的分析,部分肾脏缓解,血清肌酐,蛋白尿,血清肌酐倍增,进展为终末期肾病,肾复发,和严重不良事件(感染和死亡率)。建议评估的分级,使用开发和评估(GRADE)方法来制定这些建议。建议要求≥82%的投票成员同意,并被归类为强烈赞成,微弱地赞成,有条件的,弱反对或强烈反对特定干预。LN管理的其他方面(诊断,治疗的一般原则,合并症和难治性病例的治疗)通过文献回顾和专家意见进行了评估。
    结果:所有SLE患者均应接受肌酐和尿液分析检查以评估肾脏受累情况。肾活检被认为是诊断LN的金标准,如果不可用或该程序有禁忌症,治疗决策应基于临床和实验室参数.提出了14项建议。目标肾反应(TRR)定义为肾功能的改善或维持(治疗基线时±10%),并在3个月时24小时蛋白尿或24小时UPCR减少25%。在6个月时减少了50%,12个月时蛋白尿<0.8g/24h。应向所有SLE患者开具羟氯喹处方,除了禁忌症。糖皮质激素应以最低剂量和最短的必要时间使用。在III类或IV类(±V)中,霉酚酸酯(MMF),环磷酰胺,MMF加他克莫司(TAC),MMF加belimumab或TAC可用作诱导疗法。对于维持治疗,MMF或硫唑嘌呤(AZA)是首选,TAC或环孢菌素或来氟米特可用于不能使用MMF或AZA的患者。利妥昔单抗可用于难治性疾病。在未能实现TRR的情况下,评估依从性很重要,免疫抑制剂剂量,辅助治疗,合并症,并考虑活检/再活检。
    结论:这一共识提供了基于证据的数据来指导LN的诊断和治疗。支持巴西制定公共和补充卫生政策。
    To develop the second evidence-based Brazilian Society of Rheumatology consensus for diagnosis and treatment of lupus nephritis (LN).
    Two methodologists and 20 rheumatologists from Lupus Comittee of Brazilian Society of Rheumatology participate in the development of this guideline. Fourteen PICO questions were defined and a systematic review was performed. Eligible randomized controlled trials were analyzed regarding complete renal remission, partial renal remission, serum creatinine, proteinuria, serum creatinine doubling, progression to end-stage renal disease, renal relapse, and severe adverse events (infections and mortality). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to develop these recommendations. Recommendations required ≥82% of agreement among the voting members and were classified as strongly in favor, weakly in favor, conditional, weakly against or strongly against a particular intervention. Other aspects of LN management (diagnosis, general principles of treatment, treatment of comorbidities and refractory cases) were evaluated through literature review and expert opinion.
    All SLE patients should undergo creatinine and urinalysis tests to assess renal involvement. Kidney biopsy is considered the gold standard for diagnosing LN but, if it is not available or there is a contraindication to the procedure, therapeutic decisions should be based on clinical and laboratory parameters. Fourteen recommendations were developed. Target Renal response (TRR) was defined as improvement or maintenance of renal function (±10% at baseline of treatment) combined with a decrease in 24-h proteinuria or 24-h UPCR of 25% at 3 months, a decrease of 50% at 6 months, and proteinuria < 0.8 g/24 h at 12 months. Hydroxychloroquine should be prescribed to all SLE patients, except in cases of contraindication. Glucocorticoids should be used at the lowest dose and for the minimal necessary period. In class III or IV (±V), mycophenolate (MMF), cyclophosphamide, MMF plus tacrolimus (TAC), MMF plus belimumab or TAC can be used as induction therapy. For maintenance therapy, MMF or azathioprine (AZA) are the first choice and TAC or cyclosporin or leflunomide can be used in patients who cannot use MMF or AZA. Rituximab can be prescribed in cases of refractory disease. In cases of failure in achieving TRR, it is important to assess adherence, immunosuppressant dosage, adjuvant therapy, comorbidities, and consider biopsy/rebiopsy.
    This consensus provides evidence-based data to guide LN diagnosis and treatment, supporting the development of public and supplementary health policies in Brazil.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    尚未完成对探索增强术后恢复(ERAS)指南结果的证据的全面审查。
    为了评估ERAS指南是否与改善住院时间相关,医院再入院,并发症,和死亡率与常规手术治疗相比,并了解基于研究和患者因素的估计差异。
    MEDLINE,Embase,护理和相关健康文献的累积指数,和CochraneCentral从一开始就被搜索到2021年6月。
    标题,摘要,全文由两名独立审稿人筛选。符合条件的研究是随机临床试验,与对照组相比,检查了ERAS引导的手术,并报告了至少1个结果。
    使用标准化数据抽象表单对数据进行一式两份的抽象。该研究遵循了系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目。使用Cochrane偏差风险工具重复评估偏差风险。随机效应荟萃分析用于汇集每个结果的估计值,元回归确定了每个结果中异质性的来源。
    主要结果是住院时间,出院后30天内再次入院,术后30天并发症,和术后30天死亡率。
    在确定的12047个参考文献中,1493个全文进行了资格筛选,495人被纳入系统评价,和74个RCTs,9076名参与者被纳入荟萃分析.纳入的研究提供了来自21个国家和9个ERAS引导的外科手术的数据,其中15个(20.3%)具有低偏倚风险。ERAS合规性的平均值(SD)报告,结果,要素研究清单得分为13.5(2.3)。住院时间减少1.88天(95%CI,0.95-2.81天;I2=86.5%;P<.001),并发症风险降低(风险比,ERAS组0.71;95%CI,0.59-0.87;I2=78.6%;P<.001)。再入院和死亡率的风险并不显著。
    在此荟萃分析中,ERAS指南与住院时间减少和并发症相关。未来的研究应旨在改善ERAS的实施并增加指南的覆盖范围。
    UNASSIGNED: A comprehensive review of the evidence exploring the outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) guidelines has not been completed.
    UNASSIGNED: To evaluate if ERAS guidelines are associated with improved hospital length of stay, hospital readmission, complications, and mortality compared with usual surgical care, and to understand differences in estimates based on study and patient factors.
    UNASSIGNED: MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception until June 2021.
    UNASSIGNED: Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were screened by 2 independent reviewers. Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials that examined ERAS-guided surgery compared with a control group and reported on at least 1 of the outcomes.
    UNASSIGNED: Data were abstracted in duplicate using a standardized data abstraction form. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Risk of bias was assessed in duplicate using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool estimates for each outcome, and meta-regression identified sources of heterogeneity within each outcome.
    UNASSIGNED: The primary outcomes were hospital length of stay, hospital readmission within 30 days of index discharge, 30-day postoperative complications, and 30-day postoperative mortality.
    UNASSIGNED: Of the 12 047 references identified, 1493 full texts were screened for eligibility, 495 were included in the systematic review, and 74 RCTs with 9076 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Included studies presented data from 21 countries and 9 ERAS-guided surgical procedures with 15 (20.3%) having a low risk of bias. The mean (SD) Reporting on ERAS Compliance, Outcomes, and Elements Research checklist score was 13.5 (2.3). Hospital length of stay decreased by 1.88 days (95% CI, 0.95-2.81 days; I2 = 86.5%; P < .001) and the risk of complications decreased (risk ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.87; I2 = 78.6%; P < .001) in the ERAS group. Risk of readmission and mortality were not significant.
    UNASSIGNED: In this meta-analysis, ERAS guidelines were associated with decreased hospital length of stay and complications. Future studies should aim to improve implementation of ERAS and increase the reach of the guidelines.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    红细胞(RBC)输血是治疗早产新生儿贫血的常见医学干预措施;然而,最佳输血实践,如门槛,仍然不确定。
    为临床医生在极早产新生儿中使用红细胞输血提供建议。
    一个国际指导委员会审查了对6项随机临床试验(RCT)进行系统评价的证据,这些试验比较了基于高血红蛋白和低血红蛋白或基于血细胞比容的输血阈值。指导委员会就证据确定性评级达成共识,并与利益攸关方组织的一个小组合作审查证据。根据家长代表和利益相关者小组的意见,指导委员会使用了建议分级,评估,发展,和评估(等级)方法来制定建议。
    对6项随机对照试验的系统评价,包括3483名参与者(1759名女性[51.3%];平均[SD]年龄范围,25.9-29.8[1.5-3.0]周)用作建议的基础。在试验中,较高血红蛋白浓度(自由)与较低血红蛋白浓度(限制性)阈值研究组的范围相似。然而,具体阈值根据疾病的严重程度而有所不同,这是在试验中使用可变标准定义的。有证据表明,低输血阈值在重要的短期和长期结局中几乎没有差异。推荐的血红蛋白阈值根据出生后一周和呼吸支持需求而变化。在出生后第1、2和3周或更长时间,对于呼吸支持的新生儿,推荐阈值为11、10和9g/dL,分别;对于没有或最少呼吸支持的新生儿,推荐阈值为10、8.5和7g/dL,分别(将血红蛋白转化为每升克数,乘以10.0)。
    这份共识声明建议采用限制性红细胞输注策略,有适度的证据确定性,妊娠少于30周的早产新生儿。
    UNASSIGNED: Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is a common medical intervention to treat anemia in very preterm neonates; however, best transfusion practices, such as thresholds, remain uncertain.
    UNASSIGNED: To develop recommendations for clinicians on the use of RBC transfusions in very preterm neonates.
    UNASSIGNED: An international steering committee reviewed evidence from a systematic review of 6 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared high vs low hemoglobin-based or hematocrit-based transfusion thresholds. The steering committee reached consensus on certainty-of-evidence ratings and worked with a panel from stakeholder organizations on reviewing the evidence. With input from parent representatives and the stakeholder panel, the steering committee used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations.
    UNASSIGNED: A systematic review of 6 RCTs encompassing 3483 participants (1759 females [51.3%]; mean [SD] age range, 25.9-29.8 [1.5-3.0] weeks) was used as the basis of the recommendations. The ranges for higher hemoglobin concentration (liberal) vs lower hemoglobin concentration (restrictive) threshold study arms were similar across the trials. However, specific thresholds differed based on the severity of illness, which was defined using variable criteria in the trials. There was moderate certainty of evidence that low transfusion thresholds likely had little to no difference in important short-term and long-term outcomes. The recommended hemoglobin thresholds varied on the basis of postnatal week and respiratory support needs. At postnatal weeks 1, 2, and 3 or more, for neonates on respiratory support, the recommended thresholds were 11, 10, and 9 g/dL, respectively; for neonates on no or minimal respiratory support, the recommended thresholds were 10, 8.5, and 7 g/dL, respectively (to convert hemoglobin to grams per liter, multiply by 10.0).
    UNASSIGNED: This consensus statement recommends a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy, with moderate certainty of evidence, for preterm neonates with less than 30 weeks\' gestation.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: English Abstract
    .糖尿病足的管理:糖尿病足国际工作组的新指南。糖尿病足新指南的发布是对(少数)新进展进行微调的机会,而是迄今为止已知的证据和知识的合理性。与之前的2019年指南相比,2023年的更新仅包括随机临床试验的分析,更准确地应用等级方法,更精简、更最新的参考书目,以及一些建议的强度从低到有条件的更新。2023年更新的真正重大新闻是发布了诊断和治疗糖尿病患者Charcot神经骨关节病的具体指南,神经病变和没有皮肤损伤。
    . The management of diabetic foot: the new guidelines of the International Working Group on Diabetic Foot. The publication of the new guidelines on the diabetic foot are an opportunity for a fine-tuning of the (few) new developments, but of the soundness of the evidence and knowledge known so far. Compared to the previous 2019 guidelines, the 2023 update included the analysis of randomised clinical trials only, a more accurate application of the GRADE method, a leaner and more current bibliography, and an update of the strength of some recommendations from low to conditional. The real big news in the 2023 update is the publication of a specific guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of Charcot neuro-osteoarthropathy in people with diabetes, neuropathy and in the absence of skin lesions.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:SAVVY项目旨在通过使用生存技术适当处理不同的随访时间和竞争事件(CE)来改善临床试验中不良事件(AE)的分析。本文总结了各种Savvy论文的主要特征和结论。
    方法:总结了几篇报告理论研究的论文,使用模拟和实证研究,包括来自几个赞助商组织的随机临床试验,对忽略不同随访时间或CEs的偏见进行了调查。量化了AE风险的绝对(发生率比例和1减去Kaplan-Meier)和相对(风险和风险比)的常用估计器的偏倚。此外,我们对安全性数据分析的相关指南如何处理不同随访时间和CEs的特征进行了粗略评估.
    结果:Savvy发现,避免偏见和将关于AE风险的治疗效果的证据分类,估计器的选择是关键,比基础数据的特征更重要,如审查百分比,CEs,跟进量,或金本位制的价值。
    结论:选择累积AE概率的估计器和CE的定义至关重要。每当AE评估中存在不同的随访时间和/或CE时,SAVVY建议使用Aalen-Johansen估计器(AJE)和CEs的适当定义来量化AE风险。迫切需要改进报告AE的相关临床试验报告指南,以便最终将发病率比例或一个减去Kaplan-Meier估计器替换为具有适当CEs定义的AJE。
    BACKGROUND: The SAVVY project aims to improve the analyses of adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials through the use of survival techniques appropriately dealing with varying follow-up times and competing events (CEs). This paper summarizes key features and conclusions from the various SAVVY papers.
    METHODS: Summarizing several papers reporting theoretical investigations using simulations and an empirical study including randomized clinical trials from several sponsor organizations, biases from ignoring varying follow-up times or CEs are investigated. The bias of commonly used estimators of the absolute (incidence proportion and one minus Kaplan-Meier) and relative (risk and hazard ratio) AE risk is quantified. Furthermore, we provide a cursory assessment of how pertinent guidelines for the analysis of safety data deal with the features of varying follow-up time and CEs.
    RESULTS: SAVVY finds that for both, avoiding bias and categorization of evidence with respect to treatment effect on AE risk into categories, the choice of the estimator is key and more important than features of the underlying data such as percentage of censoring, CEs, amount of follow-up, or value of the gold-standard.
    CONCLUSIONS: The choice of the estimator of the cumulative AE probability and the definition of CEs are crucial. Whenever varying follow-up times and/or CEs are present in the assessment of AEs, SAVVY recommends using the Aalen-Johansen estimator (AJE) with an appropriate definition of CEs to quantify AE risk. There is an urgent need to improve pertinent clinical trial reporting guidelines for reporting AEs so that incidence proportions or one minus Kaplan-Meier estimators are finally replaced by the AJE with appropriate definition of CEs.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:通过对心肌梗塞(MI)后患者的结构化和综合性心脏康复计划提供二级预防可降低死亡率和发病率,并改善与健康相关的生活质量。心脏康复在当前指南中具有最高的推荐。虽然瑞典心脏康复中心的治疗目标完成率是欧洲最高的,各中心之间在服务提供和患者层面结局方面存在相当大的差异.在这次审判中,我们的目的是研究是否可以通过以下方式改善瑞典心脏康复中心的中心级指南依从性和患者级结局:a)通过国家质量登记系统对心脏康复结构和流程进行定期审核和反馈;b)支持心脏康复中心实施二级预防指南.此外,我们的目标是评估实施过程和成本。
    方法:该研究是一项开放标签的整群随机有效性-实施混合试验,包括所有78个心脏康复中心(每年约10000名MI患者参加),报告给SWEDEHEART注册中心。这些中心将以1:1:1随机分为三组:1)每六个月向SWEDEHEART报告心脏康复结构和过程变量(审计干预),并为实施二级预防指南提供实施支持(实施支持干预);2)仅审计干预;或3)不提供干预。将收集基线心脏康复结构和过程变量。主要结果是依从性评分,用于衡量中心级别对二级预防指南的依从性。次要结果包括MI后一年达到患者水平的二级预防危险因素目标,以及MI后五年内的主要不良冠状动脉结果。实施结果包括使用半结构化焦点小组访谈和相关问卷评估指南依从性的障碍和促进者,以及通过比较卫生经济评估评估的成本和成本效益。
    结论:优化心脏康复中心提供服务以满足指南中设定的标准可能会改善心血管危险因素,包括生活方式因素,并最终降低MI后的发病率和死亡率。
    背景:ClinicalTrials.gov.标识符:NCT05889416。注册2023-03-23。
    BACKGROUND: Providing secondary prevention through structured and comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation programmes to patients after a myocardial infarction (MI) reduces mortality and morbidity and improves health-related quality of life. Cardiac rehabilitation has the highest recommendation in current guidelines. While treatment target attainment rates at Swedish cardiac rehabilitation centres is among the highest in Europe, there are considerable differences in service delivery and variations in patient-level outcomes between centres. In this trial, we aim to study whether centre-level guideline adherence and patient-level outcomes across Swedish cardiac rehabilitation centres can be improved through a) regular audit and feedback of cardiac rehabilitation structure and processes through a national quality registry and b) supporting cardiac rehabilitation centres in implementing guidelines on secondary prevention. Furthermore, we aim to evaluate the implementation process and costs.
    METHODS: The study is an open-label cluster-randomized effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial including all 78 cardiac rehabilitation centres (attending to approximately 10 000 MI patients/year) that report to the SWEDEHEART registry. The centres will be randomized 1:1:1 to three clusters: 1) reporting cardiac rehabilitation structure and process variables to SWEDEHEART every six months (audit intervention) and being offered implementation support to implement guidelines on secondary prevention (implementation support intervention); 2) audit intervention only; or 3) no intervention offered. Baseline cardiac rehabilitation structure and process variables will be collected. The primary outcome is an adherence score measuring centre-level adherence to secondary prevention guidelines. Secondary outcomes include patient-level secondary prevention risk factor goal attainment at one-year after MI and major adverse coronary outcomes for up to five-years post-MI. Implementation outcomes include barriers and facilitators to guideline adherence evaluated using semi-structured focus-group interviews and relevant questionnaires, as well as costs and cost-effectiveness assessed by a comparative health economic evaluation.
    CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing cardiac rehabilitation centres\' delivery of services to meet standards set in guidelines may lead to improvement in cardiovascular risk factors, including lifestyle factors, and ultimately a decrease in morbidity and mortality after MI.
    BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT05889416 . Registered 2023-03-23.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

公众号