首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Research Methodology >Investigator initiated trials versus industry sponsored trials - translation of randomized controlled trials into clinical practice (IMPACT)
【24h】

Investigator initiated trials versus industry sponsored trials - translation of randomized controlled trials into clinical practice (IMPACT)

机译:调查员启动试验与行业赞助试验 - 将随机对照试验翻译成临床实践(影响)

获取原文
       

摘要

Healthcare decisions are ideally based on clinical trial results, published in study registries, as journal articles or summarized in secondary research articles. In this research project, we investigated the impact of academically and commercially sponsored clinical trials on medical practice by measuring the proportion of trials published and cited by systematic reviews and clinical guidelines. We examined 691 multicenter, randomized controlled trials that started in 2005 or later and were completed by the end of 2016. To determine whether sponsorship/funding and place of conduct influence a trial’s impact, we created four sub-cohorts of investigator initiated trials (IITs) and industry sponsored trials (ISTs): 120 IITs and 171 ISTs with German contribution compared to 200 IITs and 200 ISTs without German contribution. We balanced the groups for study phase and place of conduct. German IITs were funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), or by another non-commercial research organization. All other trials were drawn from the German Clinical Trials Register or ClinicalTrials.gov. We investigated, to what extent study characteristics were associated with publication and impact using multivariable logistic regressions. For 80% of the 691 trials, results were published as result articles in a medical journal and/or study registry, 52% were cited by a systematic review, and 26% reached impact in a clinical guideline. Drug trials and larger trials were associated with a higher probability to be published and to have an impact than non-drug trials and smaller trials. Results of IITs were more often published as a journal article while results of ISTs were more often published in study registries. International ISTs less often gained impact by inclusion in systematic reviews or guidelines than IITs. An encouraging high proportion of the clinical trials were published, and a considerable proportion gained impact on clinical practice. However, there is still room for improvement. For publishing study results, study registries have become an alternative or complement to journal articles, especially for ISTs. IITs funded by governmental bodies in Germany reached an impact that is comparable to international IITs and ISTs.
机译:医疗保健决策是基于临床试验的理想下,在研究登记处出版,作为期刊文章或次要研究文章总结。在本研究项目中,我们通过衡量通过系统评价和临床指南的试验比例来调查学术和商业上赞助的临床试验对医疗实践的影响。我们审查了2005年或更高年度开始的691个多中心,随机对照试验,并在2016年底完成。确定赞助/资金和行为的资金和行为的地方,我们创建了四个调查员发起的试验(IITS )和行业赞助试验(ISTS):120 IITS和171个具有德国贡献的ISTS,而200个IITS和200个没有德国贡献的ISTS。我们平衡了学习阶段和行为的群体。德国IITES由德国研究基金会(DFG),联邦教育和研究(BMBF)或另一个非商业研究组织提供资金。所有其他试验均由德国临床试验登记册或Clinicaltrials.gov。我们调查了,在多大程度上研究了使用多变量逻辑回归的出版物和影响。对于691项试验中的80%,结果将在医学期刊和/或研究登记处的结果文章中公布,52%被系统审查引用,26%对临床指南达到了影响。药物试验和较大的试验与发表的较高概率相关,并产生比非药物试验和较小的试验的影响。 IIT的结果更常常作为期刊文章公布,而ISTS的结果更常见于研究登记处。国际潜力计量较少往往在系统性评价或指南中纳入影响而不是概率。促进临床试验的令人鼓舞的高比例,并且对临床实践产生了相当大的比例。但是,仍有改进的余地。对于出版研究结果,研究登记处已成为期刊文章的替代或补充,特别是ists。由德国政府机构资助的IITS达到了与国际IITS和ISTS相当的影响。

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