Suppr超能文献

简短通讯:询问患者不良医疗事件的更好方法:一项随机对照试验。

Brief communication: Better ways to question patients about adverse medical events: a randomized, controlled trial.

作者信息

Bent Stephen, Padula Amy, Avins Andrew L

机构信息

University of California and San Francisco Veterans Administration Medical Center, San Francisco, California 94121, USA.

出版信息

Ann Intern Med. 2006 Feb 21;144(4):257-61. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-144-4-200602210-00007.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There is no standard method of identifying adverse events in clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether 3 different methods of questioning patients about adverse events in a clinical trial affect the frequency of reported events.

DESIGN

Randomized, single-blind, controlled trial.

SETTING

A Veterans Administration medical center, San Francisco, California.

PARTICIPANTS

Men 50 years of age or older who had benign prostatic hyperplasia.

MEASUREMENT

Frequency of self-reported medical problems.

INTERVENTION

The authors randomly assigned 214 men who were undergoing a 1-month, single-blind, placebo run-in period during an existing clinical trial to 3 groups to test different self-administered methods of assessing medical problems at the end of the run-in period. The first group was asked an open-ended question; the second group was asked an open-ended, defined question; and the third group was given a checklist of 53 common side effects.

RESULTS

All 214 patients completed the study. Patients assigned to the checklist group reported a total of 238 adverse events; in comparison, patients who were asked an open-ended question or an open-ended, defined question reported 11 and 14 adverse events, respectively (P < 0.001). The percentage of patients reporting any adverse event was also much higher in the group assigned to the checklist (77%) than in the first group (14%) or second group (13%) (P < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

The study included only relatively healthy, well-educated, middle-aged men and assessed only self-reported medical problems after the participants had taken placebo for 1 month. All personnel overseeing the study were aware of the group assignments.

CONCLUSIONS

Different methods of collecting patient data regarding adverse events lead to large differences in the reported rates of adverse events in clinical trials, potentially reducing the validity of comparisons between the side effect profiles of drugs and other interventions.

摘要

背景

在临床试验中,尚无识别不良事件的标准方法。

目的

确定在临床试验中询问患者不良事件的3种不同方法是否会影响报告事件的频率。

设计

随机、单盲、对照试验。

地点

加利福尼亚州旧金山的一家退伍军人管理局医疗中心。

参与者

年龄在50岁及以上的良性前列腺增生男性。

测量

自我报告的医疗问题频率。

干预措施

在一项现有临床试验的1个月单盲安慰剂导入期内,作者将214名男性随机分为3组,以测试在导入期结束时评估医疗问题的不同自我管理方法。第一组被问一个开放式问题;第二组被问一个开放式的限定问题;第三组得到一份包含53种常见副作用的清单。

结果

所有214名患者均完成了研究。被分配到清单组的患者共报告了238起不良事件;相比之下,被问开放式问题或开放式限定问题的患者分别报告了11起和14起不良事件(P<0.001)。报告任何不良事件的患者百分比在分配到清单组的患者中(77%)也远高于第一组(14%)或第二组(13%)(P<0.001)。

局限性

该研究仅纳入了相对健康、受过良好教育的中年男性,且仅在参与者服用安慰剂1个月后评估自我报告的医疗问题。所有监督该研究的人员都知晓分组情况。

结论

收集患者关于不良事件数据的不同方法导致临床试验中报告的不良事件发生率存在很大差异,这可能会降低药物和其他干预措施副作用特征比较的有效性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验