首页> 外文期刊>BMJ Open >How often are interventions in cluster-randomised controlled trials of complex interventions in general practices effective and reasons for potential shortcomings? Protocol and results of a feasibility project for a systematic review
【24h】

How often are interventions in cluster-randomised controlled trials of complex interventions in general practices effective and reasons for potential shortcomings? Protocol and results of a feasibility project for a systematic review

机译:在一般实践中,对复杂干预措施进行整群随机对照试验的干预措施有效的频率和潜在缺陷的原因?进行系统审查的可行性项目的协议和结果

获取原文
       

摘要

Introduction Most studies conducted at general practices investigate complex interventions and increasingly use cluster-randomised controlled trail (c-RCT) designs to do so. Our primary objective is to evaluate how frequently complex interventions are shown to be more, equally or less effective than routine care in c-RCTs with a superior design. The secondary aim is to discover whether the quality of a c-RCT determines the likelihood of the complex intervention being effective. Methods and analysis All c-RCTs of any design that have a patient-relevant primary outcome and with a duration of at least 1?year will be included. The search will be performed in three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)). The screening process, data collection, quality assessment and statistical data analyses (if suitably similar and of adequate quality) will be performed in accordance with requirements of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A feasibility project was carried out that was restricted to a search in MEDLINE and the CCTR for c-RCTs published in 1 of the 8 journals that are most relevant to general practice. The process from trial selection to data collection, assessment and results presentation was piloted. Of the 512 abstracts identified during the feasibility search, 21 studies examined complex interventions in a general practice setting. Extrapolating the preliminary search to include all relevant c-RCTs in three databases, about 5000 abstracts and 150 primary studies are expected to be identified in the main study. 14 studies included in the feasibility project (67%) did not show a positive effect on a primary patient-relevant end point. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not being sought for this review. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals that frequently publish articles on the results of c-RCTs and through presentations at international conferences. Trial registration number PROSPERO CRD201400923.
机译:简介大多数在常规实践中进行的研究都对复杂的干预措施进行了调查,并越来越多地使用群集随机控制的跟踪(c-RCT)设计。我们的主要目标是评估在设计精良的c-RCT中,复杂干预措施比常规护理更有效,相同或更少的频率。第二个目的是发现c-RCT的质量是否确定复杂干预有效的可能性。方法和分析包括所有与患者相关的主要结果且持续时间至少为1年的c-RCT。搜索将在三个电子数据库(MEDLINE,EMBASE和Cochrane系统评价数据库(CDSR))中进行。筛查过程,数据收集,质量评估和统计数据分析(如果适当相似且质量适当)将根据《 Cochrane干预系统评价手册》的要求进行。进行了一个可行性项目,该项目仅限于在MEDLINE和CCTR中搜索与一般实践最相关的8种期刊中的1种发表的c-RCT。从试验选择到数据收集,评估和结果展示的过程都得到了试点。在可行性搜索过程中确定的512个摘要中,有21个研究在一般实践环境中检查了复杂的干预措施。外推初步搜索以将所有相关的c-RCT包括在三个数据库中,预计将在主要研究中确定约5000个摘要和150项主要研究。可行性研究中包含的14项研究(67%)未对与患者相关的主要终点产生积极影响。伦理与传播此次审查未寻求伦理许可。研究结果将通过同行评审期刊(经常发表有关c-RCT结果的文章)以及在国际会议上的演讲进行传播。试用注册号PROSPERO CRD201400923。

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