首页> 外文期刊>Trials >Quality of reporting of clinical non-inferiority and equivalence randomised trials - update and extension
【24h】

Quality of reporting of clinical non-inferiority and equivalence randomised trials - update and extension

机译:临床非劣效性和等效性随机试验的报告质量-更新和扩展

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Background Non-inferiority and equivalence trials require tailored methodology and therefore adequate conduct and reporting is an ambitious task. The aim of our review was to assess whether the criteria recommended by the CONSORT extension were followed. Methods We searched the Medline database and the Cochrane Central Register for reports of randomised non-inferiority and equivalence trials published in English language. We excluded reports on bioequivalence studies, reports targeting on other than the main results of a trial, and articles of which the full-text version was not available. In total, we identified 209 reports (167 non-inferiority, 42 equivalence trials) and assessed the reporting and methodological quality using abstracted items of the CONSORT extension. Results Half of the articles did not report on the method of randomisation and only a third of the trials were reported to use blinding. The non-inferiority or equivalence margin was defined in most reports (94%), but was justified only for a quarter of the trials. Sample size calculation was reported for a proportion of 90%, but the margin was taken into account in only 78% of the trials reported. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis were presented in less than half of the reports. When reporting the results, a confidence interval was given for 85% trials. A proportion of 21% of the reports presented a conclusion that was wrong or incomprehensible. Overall, we found a substantial lack of quality in reporting and conduct. The need to improve also applied to aspects generally recommended for randomised trials. The quality was partly better in high-impact journals as compared to others. Conclusions There are still important deficiencies in the reporting on the methodological approach as well as on results and interpretation even in high-impact journals. It seems to take more than guidelines to improve conduct and reporting of non-inferiority and equivalence trials.
机译:背景非自卑和对等试验需要量身定制的方法,因此,适当的举止和举报是一项艰巨的任务。我们审查的目的是评估是否遵循了CONSORT扩展建议的标准。方法我们在Medline数据库和Cochrane中央登记册中搜索了以英语发布的非劣效性和等效性随机试验的报告。我们排除了有关生物等效性研究的报告,针对试验主要结果以外的报告的报告以及没有全文版本的文章。我们总共确定了209份报告(167项非劣效性,42项等效性试验),并使用CONSORT扩展摘要提取了报告和方法学质量。结果一半的文章没有报道随机方法,只有三分之一的试验报道了盲法。在大多数报告(94%)中定义了非劣效性或等效性裕度,但仅在四分之一的试验中才有理由。据报道,样本量计算的比例为90%,但只有78%的试验考虑了余量。在不到一半的报告中都进行了意向性处理和按方案分析。报告结果时,给出了85%试验的置信区间。 21%的报告中有错误或无法理解的结论。总体而言,我们发现报告和行为的质量严重不足。改进的需求也适用于一般推荐用于随机试验的方面。与其他期刊相比,高影响力期刊的质量在一定程度上要好一些。结论即使在高影响力的期刊中,方法论以及结果和解释的报告仍然存在重大缺陷。似乎需要更多的指导方针来改善非自卑和对等试验的行为和报告。

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