Mills Edward J, Chow Tiffany W
The University of Oxford.
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2003 Nov-Dec;4(6):302-7. doi: 10.1097/01.JAM.0000095257.68552.3D.
To evaluate the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials for pharmacologic interventions in long-term care residents with dementia.
We performed electronic searches of AMED, CINAHL, E-PSYCHE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and MEDLINE. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and bibliographies of relevant review articles.
All randomized controlled trials for pharmacologic interventions in patients with dementia residing in long-term care facilities.
We abstracted data independently, in duplicate, using a data abstraction sheet and a quality checklist.
Fifteen trials met inclusion criteria. Five trials lacked institutional ethical review, while two lacked informed consent. Eleven trials gave adequate description of withdrawals and 14 trials reported adverse events adequately. We found incomplete reporting of methods of randomization, allocation concealment, restriction, blinding, sample size estimation and intention-to-treat analysis. Sensitivity analysis indicated that reporting of allocation concealment was associated with increased quality of trial according to the quality scale (P = 0.007).
Clinicians and the public do not have high-quality information to guide pharmacologic decision making for long-term care residents with dementia. The reporting quality is highly variable in the trials reviewed, and concerns exist surrounding the conduct of several trials.
评估针对痴呆症长期护理机构居民的药物干预随机对照试验的报告质量。
我们对AMED、CINAHL、E-PSYCHE、Cochrane对照试验注册库和MEDLINE进行了电子检索。我们还检索了纳入研究的参考文献列表以及相关综述文章的参考文献目录。
所有针对长期护理机构中痴呆症患者的药物干预随机对照试验。
我们使用数据提取表和质量检查表独立进行了两次重复的数据提取。
15项试验符合纳入标准。5项试验缺乏机构伦理审查,2项试验缺乏知情同意。11项试验对退出情况进行了充分描述,14项试验对不良事件进行了充分报告。我们发现随机化方法、分配隐藏、限制、盲法、样本量估计和意向性分析的报告不完整。敏感性分析表明,根据质量量表,分配隐藏的报告与试验质量的提高相关(P = 0.007)。
临床医生和公众没有高质量的信息来指导痴呆症长期护理机构居民的药物决策。在所审查的试验中,报告质量差异很大,并且对几项试验的实施存在担忧。