...
首页> 外文期刊>Neurosurgery >Subgroup analysis and covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials of traumatic brain injury: a systematic review.
【24h】

Subgroup analysis and covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials of traumatic brain injury: a systematic review.

机译:亚组分析和协变量调整在创伤性脑损伤的随机临床试验中:系统评价。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

OBJECTIVE: Few randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the field of traumatic brain injury (TBI) have shown a significant treatment benefit. We critically reviewed the use of two types of secondary analyses, covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis, which are common in TBI trials. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of therapeutic phase III RCTs, including adult patients with acute, moderate-to-severe TBI. Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) at > or =3 months as outcome, and > or =50 patients per arm were required. We compared the actual reporting of covariate adjustment and subgroup analyses with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) recommendations. Likewise, we reviewed six protocols of large multicenter RCTs and compared planned and reported subgroups. RESULTS: We identified 18 RCTs (n = 6439). Sixteen trials used GOS at 6 months as outcome. Five RCTs reported covariate adjustment. The number of covariates was limited (< or =5), most frequently including age. Many covariates were outcome predictors. Four RCTs reported only adjusted treatment effects as the main efficacy parameter. Eleven RCTs reported subgroup analyses. Several subgroup factors (< or =7, mainly outcome predictors) and outcomes (< or =4) were included. The highest total number of subgroups was 15, and only three RCTs completely pre-specified subgroups. Notably, 10 of 11 RCTs performed inappropriate separate subgroup analyses. Of 11 RCTs, 5 gave subgroups the same emphasis as the overall effect. Reported subgroup analyses were insufficiently described and clearly differed from those planned in the protocol. CONCLUSION: The reported covariate adjustment and subgroup analyses from TBI trials had several methodological shortcomings. Appropriate performance and reporting of covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis should be considerably improved in future TBI trials because interpretation of treatment benefits may be misleading otherwise.
机译:目的:很少有关于脑外伤(TBI)领域的随机临床试验(RCT)显示出显着的治疗益处。我们严格审查了两种类型的二次分析的使用,即协变量调整和亚组分析,这在TBI试验中很常见。方法:我们对包括急性,中度至重度TBI的成年患者在内的III期治疗性RCT进行了系统评价。格拉斯哥结局量表(GOS)在≥3个月或≥3个月且每臂≥50例患者时需要。我们将协变量调整和子组分析的实际报告与报告合并标准(CONSORT)建议进行了比较。同样,我们审查了大型多中心RCT的六个协议,并比较了计划的和报告的子组。结果:我们确定了18个RCT(n = 6439)。 16个试验在6个月时使用GOS作为结果。五个RCT报告了协变量调整。协变量的数量有限(<或= 5),最常见的是年龄。许多协变量是结果的预测指标。四个RCT报告仅将调整后的治疗效果作为主要功效参数。 11个RCT报告了亚组分析。包括几个亚组因素(<或= 7,主要是结果预测因子)和结果(<或= 4)。分组总数最高的是15个,只有三个RCT完全预先指定了分组。值得注意的是,在11个RCT中,有10个进行了不适当的单独亚组分析。在11个RCT中,有5个给予子组与总体效果相同的重视。报告的亚组分析描述不足,明显不同于方案中计划的分析。结论:TBI试验报道的协变量调整和亚组分析存在一些方法学缺陷。在将来的TBI试验中,应适当改善适当的性能以及协变量调整和亚组分析的报告,因为否则可能会误导治疗益处。

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