...
首页> 外文期刊>Arthritis and Rheumatism >Association of industry funding with the outcome and quality of randomized controlled trials of drug therapy for rheumatoid arthritis
【24h】

Association of industry funding with the outcome and quality of randomized controlled trials of drug therapy for rheumatoid arthritis

机译:行业资金与类风湿关节炎药物治疗随机对照试验的结果和质量的关联

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objective. To assess the association of industry funding with the characteristics, outcome, and reported quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of drug therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. The Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched to identify original RA drug therapy RCTs published in 2002-2003 and 2006-2007. Two reviewers independently assessed each RCT for the funding source, characteristics, outcome (positive [statistically significant result favoring experimental drug for the primary outcome] or not positive), and reporting of methodologic measures whose inadequate performance may have biased the assessment of treatment effect. RCTs that were registered at ClinicalTrials.gov and completed during the study years were assessed for publication bias. Results. Of the 103 eligible RCTs identified, 58 (56.3%) were funded by industry, 19 (18.4%) were funded by nonprofit sources, 6 (5.8%) had mixed funding, and funding for 20 (19.4%) was not specified. Industry-funded RCTs had significantly more study centers and subjects, while nonprofit agency-funded RCTs had longer duration and were more likely to study different treatment strategies. Outcome could be assessed for 86 (83.5%) of the 103 RCTs studied. The funding source was not associated with a higher likelihood of positive outcomes favoring the sponsored experimental drug (75.5% of industry-funded RCTs had a positive outcome, compared with 68.8% of nonindustry-funded RCTs, 40% of RCTs with mixed funding, and 81.2% of RCTs for which funding was not specified). Industry-funded RCTs showed a trend toward a higher likelihood of nonpublication (P = 0.093). Industry-funded RCTs were more frequently associated with double-blinding, an adequate description of participant flow, and performance of an intent-to-treat analysis. Conclusion. Industry funding was not associated with a higher likelihood of positive outcomes of published RCTs of drug therapy for RA, and industryfunded RCTs performed significantly better than non-industry-funded RCTs in terms of reporting the use of some key methodologic quality measures.
机译:目的。评估行业资金与类风湿关节炎(RA)药物治疗的随机对照试验(RCT)的特征,结果和报告质量之间的关联。方法。检索Medline和Cochrane对照试验中央注册数据库,以识别出2002-2003年和2006-2007年发布的原始RA药物治疗RCT。两名评价者独立评估每个RCT的资金来源,特征,结局(阳性(统计学上显着的结果,有利于主要结果的实验​​性药物)或不阳性),以及方法学措施的报告,其表现不足可能会影响治疗效果的评估。在临床年中注册并在研究年度内完成的RCT评估了出版偏倚。结果。在确定的103个符合条件的RCT中,有58个(56.3%)由行业提供资金,有19个(18.4%)由非营利组织提供资金,有6个(5.8%)具有混合资金,未指定20个(19.4%)的资金。由行业资助的RCT拥有更多的研究中心和主题,而由非营利机构资助的RCT则持续时间更长,并且更有可能研究不同的治疗策略。可以对103项RCT中的86项(83.5%)进行评估。资金来源与有利于赞助试验性药物的阳性结果的可能性不大相关(75.5%的行业资助的RCT具有阳性结果,相比之下,非行业资助的RCT占68.8%,混合资金的RCT占40%,未指定资助的RCT中有81.2%)。由行业资助的RCT显示出一种更高的不公开可能性(P = 0.093)。由行业资助的RCT经常与双盲,对参与者流程的充分描述以及意向治疗分析的执行相关。结论。行业资金与已发表的RA药物治疗RCT出现阳性结果的可能性更高无关,在报告使用某些关键方法学质量指标方面,行业资助的RCT的表现明显好于非行业资助的RCT。

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