• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

因有益而提前终止的随机试验:一项系统评价

Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review.

作者信息

Montori Victor M, Devereaux P J, Adhikari Neill K J, Burns Karen E A, Eggert Christoph H, Briel Matthias, Lacchetti Christina, Leung Teresa W, Darling Elizabeth, Bryant Dianne M, Bucher Heiner C, Schünemann Holger J, Meade Maureen O, Cook Deborah J, Erwin Patricia J, Sood Amit, Sood Richa, Lo Benjamin, Thompson Carly A, Zhou Qi, Mills Edward, Guyatt Gordon H

机构信息

Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

JAMA. 2005 Nov 2;294(17):2203-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.17.2203.

DOI:10.1001/jama.294.17.2203
PMID:16264162
Abstract

CONTEXT

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that stop earlier than planned because of apparent benefit often receive great attention and affect clinical practice. Their prevalence, the magnitude and plausibility of their treatment effects, and the extent to which they report information about how investigators decided to stop early are, however, unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the epidemiology and reporting quality of RCTs involving interventions stopped early for benefit.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic review up to November 2004 of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, and full-text journal content databases to identify RCTs stopped early for benefit.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials of any intervention reported as having stopped early because of results favoring the intervention. There were no exclusion criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION

Twelve reviewers working independently and in duplicate abstracted data on content area and type of intervention tested, reporting of funding, type of end point driving study termination, treatment effect, length of follow-up, estimated sample size and total sample studied, role of a data and safety monitoring board in stopping the study, number of interim analyses planned and conducted, and existence and type of monitoring methods, statistical boundaries, and adjustment procedures for interim analyses and early stopping.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 143 RCTs stopped early for benefit, the majority (92) were published in 5 high-impact medical journals. Typically, these were industry-funded drug trials in cardiology, cancer, and human immunodeficiency virus/AIDS. The proportion of all RCTs published in high-impact journals that were stopped early for benefit increased from 0.5% in 1990-1994 to 1.2% in 2000-2004 (P<.001 for trend). On average, RCTs recruited 63% (SD, 25%) of the planned sample and stopped after a median of 13 (interquartile range [IQR], 3-25) months of follow-up, 1 interim analysis, and when a median of 66 (IQR, 23-195) patients had experienced the end point driving study termination (event). The median risk ratio among truncated RCTs was 0.53 (IQR, 0.28-0.66). One hundred thirty-five (94%) of the 143 RCTs did not report at least 1 of the following: the planned sample size (n = 28), the interim analysis after which the trial was stopped (n = 45), whether a stopping rule informed the decision (n = 48), or an adjusted analysis accounting for interim monitoring and truncation (n = 129). Trials with fewer events yielded greater treatment effects (odds ratio, 28; 95% confidence interval, 11-73).

CONCLUSIONS

RCTs stopped early for benefit are becoming more common, often fail to adequately report relevant information about the decision to stop early, and show implausibly large treatment effects, particularly when the number of events is small. These findings suggest clinicians should view the results of such trials with skepticism.

摘要

背景

因明显益处而提前终止的随机临床试验(RCT)往往备受关注并影响临床实践。然而,它们的发生率、治疗效果的大小和可信度,以及它们报告研究者决定提前终止的相关信息的程度尚不清楚。

目的

评估因益处而提前终止干预措施的随机临床试验的流行病学情况和报告质量。

数据来源

截至2004年11月对MEDLINE、EMBASE、《现刊目次》和全文期刊内容数据库进行系统综述,以识别因益处而提前终止的随机临床试验。

研究选择

任何干预措施的随机临床试验,报告因结果有利于干预措施而提前终止。无排除标准。

数据提取

12名评审员独立且重复地提取关于所测试干预措施的内容领域和类型、资金报告、推动研究终止的终点类型、治疗效果、随访时长、估计样本量和研究的总样本量、数据与安全监测委员会在终止研究中的作用、计划和进行的中期分析数量,以及中期分析和提前终止的监测方法、统计界限和调整程序的存在情况及类型等数据。

数据综合

在143项因益处而提前终止的随机临床试验中,大多数(92项)发表于5种高影响力医学期刊。通常,这些是由行业资助的心脏病学、癌症和人类免疫缺陷病毒/艾滋病药物试验。1990 - 1994年在高影响力期刊上发表的所有随机临床试验中因益处而提前终止的比例为0.5%,2000 - 2004年增至1.2%(趋势P<0.001)。平均而言,随机临床试验招募了计划样本量的63%(标准差,25%),在中位随访13(四分位间距[IQR],3 - 25)个月、进行1次中期分析且中位66(IQR,23 - 195)名患者经历推动研究终止的终点(事件)后终止。截尾随机临床试验的中位风险比为0.53(IQR,0.28 - 0.66)。143项随机临床试验中有135项(94%)未报告以下至少一项:计划样本量(n = 28)、试验终止前的中期分析(n = 45)、是否有终止规则指导该决定(n = 48)或考虑中期监测和截尾的调整分析(n = 129)。事件较少的试验产生的治疗效果更大(优势比,28;95%置信区间,11 - 73)。

结论

因益处而提前终止的随机临床试验越来越常见,往往未能充分报告关于提前终止决定的相关信息,且显示出难以置信的大治疗效果,尤其是当事件数量较少时。这些发现表明临床医生应怀疑地看待此类试验的结果。

相似文献

1
Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review.因有益而提前终止的随机试验:一项系统评价
JAMA. 2005 Nov 2;294(17):2203-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.17.2203.
2
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for ovarian cancer.拓扑替康治疗卵巢癌的临床有效性和成本效益的快速系统评价。
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(28):1-110. doi: 10.3310/hta5280.
3
Automated monitoring compared to standard care for the early detection of sepsis in critically ill patients.与标准护理相比,自动监测用于危重症患者脓毒症的早期检测
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jun 25;6(6):CD012404. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012404.pub2.
4
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine and vinorelbine in non-small-cell lung cancer.对紫杉醇、多西他赛、吉西他滨和长春瑞滨在非小细胞肺癌中的临床疗效和成本效益进行的快速系统评价。
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(32):1-195. doi: 10.3310/hta5320.
5
Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19: Equity-related analyses and update on evidence.全身性皮质类固醇治疗 COVID-19:与公平相关的分析和证据更新。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Nov 17;11(11):CD014963. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014963.pub2.
6
Interventions for infantile haemangiomas of the skin.皮肤婴儿血管瘤的干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Apr 18;4(4):CD006545. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006545.pub3.
7
Nivolumab for adults with Hodgkin's lymphoma (a rapid review using the software RobotReviewer).纳武单抗用于成人霍奇金淋巴瘤(使用RobotReviewer软件进行的快速综述)
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jul 12;7(7):CD012556. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012556.pub2.
8
Sertindole for schizophrenia.用于治疗精神分裂症的舍吲哚。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jul 20;2005(3):CD001715. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001715.pub2.
9
Interventions for central serous chorioretinopathy: a network meta-analysis.中心性浆液性脉络膜视网膜病变的干预措施:一项网状Meta分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Jun 16;6(6):CD011841. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011841.pub3.
10
Comparison of cellulose, modified cellulose and synthetic membranes in the haemodialysis of patients with end-stage renal disease.纤维素、改性纤维素和合成膜在终末期肾病患者血液透析中的比较。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001(3):CD003234. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003234.

引用本文的文献

1
Carry-over effects in GAG therapy efficacy trial solution for bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis (GETSBI study): an interim analysis.膀胱疼痛综合征/间质性膀胱炎GAG治疗疗效试验方案中的残留效应(GETSBI研究):一项中期分析
BMJ Open. 2025 Jun 5;15(6):e092757. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-092757.
2
Corticosteroids for adult patients hospitalised with non-viral community-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.用于非病毒性社区获得性肺炎住院成年患者的皮质类固醇:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Intensive Care Med. 2025 May 5. doi: 10.1007/s00134-025-07912-2.
3
CONSORT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials.
CONSORT 2025解释与阐述:随机对照试验报告的更新指南
BMJ. 2025 Apr 14;389:e081124. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2024-081124.
4
Nutrition users' guides: RCTs part 1 - structured guide for assessing risk of bias in randomised controlled trials that address therapy or prevention questions.营养用户指南:随机对照试验第1部分——评估针对治疗或预防问题的随机对照试验偏倚风险的结构化指南。
BMJ Nutr Prev Health. 2024 Aug 28;7(2):e000833. doi: 10.1136/bmjnph-2023-000833. eCollection 2024.
5
Andexanet alfa: trials just leave us with more questions.安多昔单抗:试验给我们留下的只有更多问题。
Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2024 Nov 15;9(1):102628. doi: 10.1016/j.rpth.2024.102628. eCollection 2025 Jan.
6
The Fragility of Statistically Significant Binary Outcomes for Treating Achilles Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials.治疗跟腱病时具有统计学意义的二元结局的脆弱性:随机试验的系统评价
Foot Ankle Orthop. 2024 Nov 20;9(4):24730114241300160. doi: 10.1177/24730114241300160. eCollection 2024 Oct.
7
Characteristics and Impact of Randomized Trials on Drugs or Devices in Cardiovascular Medicine.心血管医学中药物或器械随机试验的特点和影响。
Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2024 Sep;24(5):651-661. doi: 10.1007/s40256-024-00670-4. Epub 2024 Aug 1.
8
Comparison of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, prone position and supine mechanical ventilation for severely hypoxemic acute respiratory distress syndrome: a network meta-analysis.比较静脉-静脉体外膜肺氧合、俯卧位和仰卧位机械通气治疗严重低氧血症性急性呼吸窘迫综合征:一项网状荟萃分析。
Intensive Care Med. 2024 Jul;50(7):1021-1034. doi: 10.1007/s00134-024-07492-7. Epub 2024 Jun 6.
9
Prevention of persistent pain with lidocaine infusions in breast cancer surgery (PLAN): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.乳腺癌手术中使用利多卡因输注预防持续性疼痛(PLAN):一项多中心随机对照试验的研究方案。
Trials. 2024 May 22;25(1):337. doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-08151-4.
10
The challenges of access to innovative medicines with limited evidence in the European Union.在欧盟获取证据有限的创新药物所面临的挑战。
Front Pharmacol. 2023 Aug 31;14:1215431. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1215431. eCollection 2023.