Suppr超能文献

发表于高影响力综合医学期刊的随机对照试验的纳入标准:一项系统抽样综述

Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review.

作者信息

Van Spall Harriette G C, Toren Andrew, Kiss Alex, Fowler Robert A

机构信息

Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.

出版信息

JAMA. 2007 Mar 21;297(11):1233-40. doi: 10.1001/jama.297.11.1233.

Abstract

CONTEXT

Selective eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are vital to trial feasibility and internal validity. However, the exclusion of certain patient populations may lead to impaired generalizability of results.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the nature and extent of exclusion criteria among RCTs published in major medical journals and the contribution of exclusion criteria to the representation of certain patient populations.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

The MEDLINE database was searched for RCTs published between 1994 and 2006 in certain general medical journals with a high impact factor. Of 4827 articles, 283 were selected using a series technique.

DATA EXTRACTION

Trial characteristics and the details regarding exclusions were extracted independently. All exclusion criteria were graded independently and in duplicate as either strongly justified, potentially justified, or poorly justified according to previously developed and pilot-tested guidelines.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Common medical conditions formed the basis for exclusion in 81.3% of trials. Patients were excluded due to age in 72.1% of all trials (60.1% in pediatric populations and 38.5% in older adults). Individuals receiving commonly prescribed medications were excluded in 54.1% of trials. Conditions related to female sex were grounds for exclusion in 39.2% of trials. Of all exclusion criteria, only 47.2% were graded as strongly justified in the context of the specific RCT. Exclusion criteria were not reported in 12.0% of trials. Multivariable analyses revealed independent associations between the total number of exclusion criteria and drug intervention trials (risk ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.65; P = .003) and between the total number of exclusion criteria and multicenter trials (risk ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.52; P = .009). Industry-sponsored trials were more likely to exclude individuals due to concomitant medication use, medical comorbidities, and age. Drug intervention trials were more likely to exclude individuals due to concomitant medication use, medical comorbidities, female sex, and socioeconomic status. Among such trials, justification for exclusions related to concomitant medication use and comorbidities were more likely to be poorly justified.

CONCLUSIONS

The RCTs published in major medical journals do not always clearly report exclusion criteria. Women, children, the elderly, and those with common medical conditions are frequently excluded from RCTs. Trials with multiple centers and those involving drug interventions are most likely to have extensive exclusions. Such exclusions may impair the generalizability of RCT results. These findings highlight a need for careful consideration and transparent reporting and justification of exclusion criteria in clinical trials.

摘要

背景

随机对照试验(RCT)的选择性纳入标准对试验可行性和内部有效性至关重要。然而,排除某些患者群体可能会导致结果的可推广性受损。

目的

确定主要医学期刊上发表的RCT中排除标准的性质和范围,以及排除标准对某些患者群体代表性的影响。

数据来源与研究选择

在MEDLINE数据库中检索1994年至2006年期间在某些具有高影响因子的普通医学期刊上发表的RCT。在4827篇文章中,采用一系列技术筛选出283篇。

数据提取

独立提取试验特征和关于排除的详细信息。根据先前制定并经过预试验的指南,所有排除标准均独立且重复地分为强合理、可能合理或不合理。

数据综合

常见医疗状况是81.3%的试验中排除的依据。在所有试验中,72.1%的患者因年龄被排除(儿科人群中为60.1%,老年人中为38.5%)。54.1%的试验排除了正在接受常用处方药治疗的个体。与女性性别相关的状况是39.2%的试验中排除的理由。在所有排除标准中,在特定RCT的背景下,只有47.2%被评为强合理。12.0%的试验未报告排除标准。多变量分析显示,排除标准总数与药物干预试验之间存在独立关联(风险比,1.35;95%置信区间,1.11 - 1.65;P = 0.003),排除标准总数与多中心试验之间也存在独立关联(风险比,1.26;95%置信区间,1.06 - 1.52;P = 0.009)。行业资助的试验更有可能因合并用药、医疗合并症和年龄而排除个体。药物干预试验更有可能因合并用药、医疗合并症、女性性别和社会经济地位而排除个体。在这类试验中,与合并用药和合并症相关的排除理由更有可能不合理。

结论

主要医学期刊上发表的RCT并不总是清晰地报告排除标准。女性、儿童、老年人以及患有常见医疗状况的人经常被排除在RCT之外。多中心试验和涉及药物干预的试验最有可能有广泛的排除。此类排除可能会损害RCT结果的可推广性。这些发现凸显了在临床试验中需要仔细考虑并透明报告和说明排除标准。

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