Zarin Deborah A, Young Julia L, West Joyce C
Technology Assessment Program Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD, USA.
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2005 Jan;40(1):27-35. doi: 10.1007/s00127-005-0838-9.
The practice of evidence-based medicine depends on the availability of clinically relevant research, yet questions have been raised about the generalizability of findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
The aim of this study was to quantify differences between RCT patients and treatments and those in day-to-day clinical practice.
Data from published reports of two key RCTs underlying recent treatment advances in psychiatry were compared with data on routine psychiatric practice collected through a Practice Research Network (PRN).
Hospital inpatient units (RCT) and the full range of psychiatric practice settings in the United States (PRN).
Adults with bipolar I disorder and adults with schizophrenia.
Demographic (age, gender, race), clinical (principal diagnoses, comorbid conditions, psychosocial functioning, and histories of hospitalization), and treatment (medication name and dosage) characteristics.
PRN patients had more comorbid conditions and were more likely to be white, female, and older than RCT patients. In all, 38% of PRN patients with schizophrenia and 55% of PRN patients with bipolar I disorder would have been ineligible for the corresponding RCT. Most PRN patients receiving an RCT study medication were also receiving other medications not allowed by the RCT protocol.
Findings support the assertion that RCT patients and treatments are not typical of those in clinical practice, and most patients in clinical practice are receiving treatments that do not have direct empirical support. Research is needed to determine the extent to which RCT findings should be used to guide routine clinical decisions.
循证医学的实践依赖于临床相关研究的可得性,但随机对照试验(RCT)结果的可推广性已受到质疑。
本研究旨在量化RCT患者及治疗与日常临床实践中的患者及治疗之间的差异。
将近期精神病学治疗进展所基于的两项关键RCT已发表报告中的数据,与通过实践研究网络(PRN)收集的常规精神病学实践数据进行比较。
医院住院部(RCT)和美国所有精神病学实践场所(PRN)。
双相I型障碍成人患者和精神分裂症成人患者。
人口统计学特征(年龄、性别、种族)、临床特征(主要诊断、共病情况、社会心理功能及住院史)和治疗特征(药物名称及剂量)。
PRN患者比RCT患者有更多共病情况,且更可能是白人、女性且年龄更大。总体而言,38%的PRN精神分裂症患者和55%的PRN双相I型障碍患者不符合相应RCT的入组标准。大多数接受RCT研究药物治疗的PRN患者还在接受RCT方案不允许的其他药物治疗。
研究结果支持以下观点,即RCT患者及治疗并非临床实践中的典型情况,且大多数临床实践中的患者所接受的治疗并无直接的实证支持。需要开展研究以确定RCT结果应用于指导常规临床决策的程度。