首页> 外文期刊>Medical decision making: An international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making >Validation of an automated safety surveillance system with prospective, randomized trial data.
【24h】

Validation of an automated safety surveillance system with prospective, randomized trial data.

机译:使用前瞻性,随机试验数据验证自动化安全监视系统。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

OBJECTIVE: We sought to validate 3 methods for automated safety monitoring by evaluating clinical trials with elevated adverse events. METHODS: An automated outcomes surveillance system was used to retrospectively analyze data from 2 randomized, TIMI multicenter trials. Trial A was stopped early due to elevated 30-day mortality rates in the intervention arm. Trial B was not stopped early, but there was transient concern regarding 30-day intracranial hemorrhage rates. We compared statistical process control (SPC), logistic regression risk adjusted SPC (LR-SPC), and Bayesian updating statistic (BUS) methods with a standard prospective 2-arm event rate analysis. Each method compares observed event rates to alerting boundaries established with previously collected data. In this evaluation, the control arms approximated prior data, and the intervention arms approximated the observed data. RESULTS: Trial A experienced elevated 30-day mortality rates beginning 7 months after the start of the trial and continuing until termination at month 14. Trial B did not experience elevated major bleeding rates. Combining the alerting performance of each method across both trials resulted in sensitivities and specificities of 100% and 85% for SPC, 0% and 100% for BUS, and 100% and 93% for both LR-SPC models, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both SPC and LR-SPC methods correctly identified the majority of months during which the cumulative event rates were elevated in trial A but were susceptible to false positive alerts in trial B. The BUS method did not result in any alerts in either trial and requires revision.
机译:目的:我们试图通过评估不良事件升高的临床试验来验证3种自动安全监控方法。方法:使用自动结果监测系统回顾性分析了2项TIMI多中心随机试验的数据。由于干预组30天的死亡率升高,试验A提前终止。试验B并没有尽早停止,但是对于30天颅内出血发生率存在暂时的担忧。我们将统计过程控制(SPC),经Logistic回归风险调整的SPC(LR-SPC)和贝叶斯更新统计(BUS)方法与标准前瞻性2组事件发生率分析进行了比较。每种方法都将观察到的事件发生率与使用先前收集的数据建立的警报边界进行比较。在此评估中,控制组近似于先前数据,而干预组近似于所观察的数据。结果:试验A在开始试验后的7个月开始一直持续30天,直到第14个月终止为止,其30天死亡率都升高了。试验B的大出血率没有升高。结合两种方法中每种方法的警报性能,分别导致SPC的敏感性和特异性分别为100%和85%,BUS的敏感性和特异性分别为0%和100%,两种LR-SPC模型分别为100%和93%。结论:SPC和LR-SPC方法均能正确识别出试验A中累积事件发生率升高的大部分月份,但在试验B中容易出现假阳性警报。在两种试验中BUS方法均未引起任何警报。需要修订。

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