...
首页> 外文期刊>Trials >The association of funding source on effect size in randomized controlled trials: 2013–2015 – a cross-sectional survey and meta-analysis
【24h】

The association of funding source on effect size in randomized controlled trials: 2013–2015 – a cross-sectional survey and meta-analysis

机译:随机对照试验中的资金来源与效应量的关联:2013-2015年–横断面调查和荟萃分析

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Background Trials financed by for-profit organizations have been associated with favorable outcomes of new treatments, although the effect size of funding source impact on outcome is unknown. The aim of this study was to estimate the effect size for a favorable outcome in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), stratified by funding source, that have been published in general medical journals. Methods Parallel-group RCTs published in The Lancet , New England Journal of Medicine , and JAMA between 2013 and 2015 were identified. RCTs with binary primary endpoints were included. The primary outcome was the OR of patients’ having a favorable outcome in the intervention group compared with the control group. The OR of a favorable outcome in each trial was calculated by the number of positive events that occurred in the intervention and control groups. A meta-analytic technique with random effects model was used to calculate summary OR. Data were stratified by funding source as for-profit, mixed, and nonprofit. Prespecified sensitivity, subgroup, and metaregression analyses were performed. Results Five hundred nine trials were included. The OR for a favorable outcome in for-profit-funded RCTs was 1.92 (95% CI 1.72–2.14), which was higher than mixed source-funded RCTs (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.25–1.43) and nonprofit-funded RCTs (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.26–1.39). The OR for a favorable outcome was higher for both clinical and surrogate endpoints in for-profit-funded trials than in RCTs with other funding sources. Excluding drug trials lowered the OR for a favorable outcome in for-profit-funded RCTs. The OR for a favorable surrogate outcome in drug trials was higher in for-profit-funded trials than in nonprofit-funded trials. Conclusions For-profit-funded RCTs have a higher OR for a favorable outcome than nonprofit- and mixed source-funded RCTs. This difference is associated mainly with the use of surrogate endpoints in for-profit-financed drug trials.
机译:背景营利性组织资助的试验与新疗法的良好效果相关联,尽管资金来源对效果的影响大小尚不清楚。这项研究的目的是评估在随机对照试验(RCT)中按资助来源分层的有利结果的疗效大小,该试验已在一般医学杂志上发表。方法确定2013年至2015年在《柳叶刀》,《新英格兰医学杂志》和《美国医学会杂志》上发表的平行组RCT。包括具有二进制主要终点的RCT。主要结果是与对照组相比,干预组患者预后良好的OR。通过干预组和对照组中发生的阳性事件的数量来计算每个试验中有利结果的OR。采用具有随机效应模型的荟萃分析技术来计算汇总OR。数据按资金来源分为营利性,混合性和非营利性。进行了预先指定的敏感性,亚组和元回归分析。结果纳入509个试验。以营利为目的的RCT中获得有利结果的OR为1.92(95%CI 1.72–2.14),高于混合来源资助的RCT(OR 1.34,95%CI 1.25–1.43)和非营利性RCT(或1.32,95%CI 1.26-1.39)。在营利性资助的试验中,临床和替代终点获得有利结果的OR均高于其他来源的RCT。排除药物试验可以降低获利性资助的RCT中OR的有利结果。在营利性资助试验中,用于药物试验的替代结果令人满意的OR高于非营利性资助试验。结论与非营利性和混合来源资助的RCT相比,以营利为目的的RCT具有更高的OR或更高的收益。这种差异主要与在以营利为目的的药物试验中使用替代终点有关。

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