首页> 外文期刊>Trials >No improvement in the reporting of clinical trial subgroup effects in high-impact general medical journals
【24h】

No improvement in the reporting of clinical trial subgroup effects in high-impact general medical journals

机译:高影响力的普通医学期刊的临床试验亚组效应的报道没有改善

获取原文
           

摘要

Background When subgroup analyses are not correctly analyzed and reported, incorrect conclusions may be drawn, and inappropriate treatments provided. Despite the increased recognition of the importance of subgroup analysis, little information exists regarding the prevalence, appropriateness, and study characteristics that influence subgroup analysis. The objective of this study is to determine (1) if the use of subgroup analyses and multivariable risk indices has increased, (2) whether statistical methodology has improved over time, and (3) which study characteristics predict subgroup analysis. Methods We randomly selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from five high-impact general medical journals during three time periods. Data from these articles were ed in duplicate using standard forms and a standard protocol. Subgroup analysis was defined as reporting any subgroup effect. Appropriate methods for subgroup analysis included a formal test for heterogeneity or interaction across treatment-by-covariate groups. We used logistic regression to determine the variables significantly associated with any subgroup analysis or, among RCTs reporting subgroup analyses, using appropriate methodology. Results The final sample of 416 articles reported 437 RCTs, of which 270 (62 %) reported subgroup analysis. Among these, 185 (69 %) used appropriate methods to conduct such analyses. Subgroup analysis was reported in 62, 55, and 67 % of the articles from 2007, 2010, and 2013, respectively. The percentage using appropriate methods decreased over the three time points from 77 % in 2007 to 63 % in 2013 ( p Conclusions While we found no significant increase in the reporting of subgroup analysis over time, our results show a significant decrease in the reporting of subgroup analyses using appropriate methods during recent years. Industry-sponsored trials may more commonly report subgroup analyses, but without utilizing appropriate methods. Suboptimal reporting of subgroup effects may impact optimal physician-patient decision-making.
机译:背景技术如果未正确分析和报告亚组分析,则可能得出错误的结论,并提供了不适当的治疗方法。尽管人们越来越意识到亚组分析的重要性,但是关于影响亚组分析的普遍性,适当性和研究特征的信息很少。这项研究的目的是确定(1)亚组分析和多变量风险指数的使用是否增加;(2)统计方法是否随着时间的推移而有所改善;(3)哪些研究特征可以预测亚组分析。方法我们在三个时间段内从五种影响较大的普通医学杂志中随机选择了随机对照试验(RCT)。这些文章的数据使用标准格式和标准协议一式两份进行编辑。亚组分析被定义为报告任何亚组效应。适当的亚组分析方法包括正式的异质性或协变治疗组间相互作用的测试。我们使用逻辑回归确定了与任何亚组分析或在报告亚组分析的RCT中显着相关的变量,并采用了适当的方法。结果416篇文章的最终样本报告了437个RCT,其中270个(62%)报告了亚组分析。其中有185(69%)使用适当的方法进行了此类分析。自2007年,2010年和2013年以来,分别有62%,55%和67%的文章报道了亚组分析。在三个时间点上,使用适当方法的百分比从2007年的77%下降到2013年的63%(p结论虽然我们发现亚组分析的报告并没有随着时间的推移而显着增加,但我们的结果显示亚组分析的报告显着减少了近年来,使用适当的方法进行分析,行业赞助的试验可能更常报告亚组分析,但没有使用适当的方法;亚组效应的次佳报告可能会影响最佳的医患决策。

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