...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of drugs in dermatology: JDD >Vehicle or placebo? Investigators use incorrect terminology in randomized controlled trials half of the time: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials published in three major dermatology journals.
【24h】

Vehicle or placebo? Investigators use incorrect terminology in randomized controlled trials half of the time: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials published in three major dermatology journals.

机译:载剂还是安慰剂?研究人员有一半的时间在随机对照试验中使用了不正确的术语:对三种主要皮肤病学杂志上发表的随机对照试验的系统评价。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

BACKGROUND: A topical comparison in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) should correctly be termed a vehicle rather than a placebo as the vehicle in a dermatologic drug product enhances delivery and efficacy of the active compound. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of RCTs involving topical drugs published in the Archives of Dermatology, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology and British Journal of Dermatology for correct classification of studies as vehicle versus placebo-controlled. METHODS: RCTs involving topical drugs published in the Archives of Dermatology, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology and British Journal of Dermatology from January 1999 to November 2008 were identified through PubMed, supplemented by citation lists from the individual journals' web pages. Only original studies that involved using a topical control or used the term topical "vehicle" or "placebo" were selected. The studies were examined for correct classification as vehicle-controlled, the year of publication, country of origin, sample size, funding source and nature of study center. RESULTS: Out of 132, 64 (49%) correctly classified their studies as vehicle-controlled. Pharmaceutical-funded studies (55%, P=0.01) were significantly associated with the use of correct classification. LIMITATIONS: As only three peer-reviewed dermatology journals were studied, findings may not be generalized to other dermatology journals and other types of publications. CONCLUSION: This systematic review highlights a common pitfall in the reporting of studies of topical dermatology drugs.
机译:背景:随机对照试验(RCT)中的局部比较应正确地称为媒介物,而不是安慰剂,因为皮肤病药物产品中的媒介物可提高活性化合物的递送和功效。目的:对涉及皮肤科文献,《美国皮肤科学院学报》和《英国皮肤科杂志》上发表的涉及局部用药的RCT进行系统评价,以将研究正确分类为赋形剂与安慰剂对照。方法:通过PubMed确定了1999年1月至2008年11月发表在《皮肤病学档案》,《美国皮肤病学杂志》和《英国皮肤病学杂志》上的涉及局部用药的RCT,并以各期刊网页的引文列表为补充。仅选择涉及使用局部对照或使用术语“车辆”或“安慰剂”的原始研究。检查了这些研究的正确分类,包括:车辆控制,出版年份,原产国,样本量,资金来源和研究中心的性质。结果:在132个样本中,有64个(49%)正确地将他们的研究归类为车辆控制。药物资助的研究(55%,P = 0.01)与正确分类的使用显着相关。局限性:由于仅研究了三篇经同行评审的皮肤病学期刊,因此研究结果可能无法推广到其他皮肤病学期刊和其他类型的出版物。结论:该系统评价突出了局部皮肤病学药物研究报告中的常见陷阱。

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