...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Research Methodology >Are concomitant treatments confounding factors in randomized controlled trials on intensive blood-glucose control in type 2 diabetes? a systematic review
【24h】

Are concomitant treatments confounding factors in randomized controlled trials on intensive blood-glucose control in type 2 diabetes? a systematic review

机译:在2型糖尿病强化血糖控制的随机对照试验中,伴随治疗是否会成为混杂因素?系统评价

获取原文
           

摘要

Background Open-label, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are subject to observer bias. If patient management is conducted without blinding, a difference between groups may be explained by other factors than study treatment. One factor may come from taking concomitant treatments with an efficacy on the studied outcomes. In type 2 diabetes, some antihypertensive or lipid-lowering drugs are effective against diabetic complications. We wanted to determine if these concomitant treatments were correctly reported in articles of RCTs on type 2 diabetes and if they might have influenced the outcome. Methods We performed a systematic review using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (from January 1950 to July 2010). Open-label RCTs assessing the effectiveness of intensive blood-glucose control in type 2 diabetes were included. We chose five therapeutic classes with proven efficacy against diabetes complications: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor antagonists (AIIRAs), fibrates, statins, and aspirin. Differences between concomitant treatments were considered statistically significant when p Results A total of eight open-label RCTs were included, but only three (37.5%) of them published concomitant treatments. In two studies (ACCORD and ADVANCE), a statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups for aspirin (p = 0.02) and ACEIs (p = 0.02). Conclusions Few concomitant treatments were published in this sample of open-label RCTs. We cannot completely eliminate an observer bias for these studies. This bias probably influenced the results to an extent that has yet to be determined.
机译:背景开放标签,随机对照试验(RCT)受观察者的偏见。如果进行患者管理时没有盲目性,则可以通过研究治疗以外的其他因素来解释组之间的差异。一个因素可能来自对研究结果有效的伴随治疗。在2型糖尿病中,某些降压药或降脂药可有效治疗糖尿病并发症。我们想确定这些伴随治疗是否在有关2型糖尿病的RCTs文章中正确报道,以及它们是否可能影响结果。方法我们使用Medline,Embase和Cochrane库(从1950年1月至2010年7月)进行了系统的审查。包括评估2型糖尿病强化血糖控制效果的开放标签RCT。我们选择了五种已证明对糖尿病并发症有效的治疗方法:血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(ACEIs),血管紧张素II受体拮抗剂(AIIRAs),贝特类药物,他汀类药物和阿司匹林。当结果为p时,同时治疗之间的差异被认为具有统计学意义。结果总共包括了8个开放标签的RCT,但是只有三个(37.5%)发表了同时治疗。在两项研究(ACCORD和ADVANCE)中,两组之间在阿司匹林(p = 0.02)和ACEI(p = 0.02)之间观察到统计学上的显着差异。结论在这种开放标签的RCT样本中几乎没有伴随治疗的发表。我们不能完全消除这些研究的观察者偏见。这种偏见可能会在一定程度上影响结果,尚待确定。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号