Heneghan Carl, Perera Rafael, Ward A Alison, Fitzmaurice David, Meats Emma, Glasziou Paul
Department of Primary Health Care, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007 May 2;7:18. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-18.
Analyzing drop out rates and when they occur may give important information about the patient characteristics and trial characteristics that affect the overall uptake of an intervention.
We searched Medline and the Cochrane library from the beginning of the databases to May 2006 for published systematic reviews that compared the effects of self-monitoring (self-testing) or self-management (self-testing and self-dosage) of oral anticoagulation or self-monitored blood glucose in type 2 diabetics who were not using insulin. We assessed all study withdrawals pre-randomization and post randomization and sought information on the reasons for discontinuation of all participants.To measure the differential between groups in attrition we used the relative attrition (RA), which is equivalent to relative risk but uses attrition as the outcome (i.e. attrition in intervention group/attrition in control group). We determined the percentage drop outs for control and intervention groups and used DerSimonian and Laird random effects models to estimate a pooled relative attrition. L'abbe type plots created in R (version 2.0.2) were used to represent the difference in the relative attrition among the trials with 95% confidence areas and weights derived from the random effects model.
With self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes, attrition ranged from 2.3% to 50.0% in the intervention groups and 0% to 40.4% in the control groups. There was no significant difference between the intervention and control, with an overall RA of 1.18 [95% CI, 0.70-2.01]. With self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation attrition ranged from 0% to 43.2% in the intervention groups and 0% to 21.4% in the control group. The RA was significantly greater in the intervention group, combined RA, 6.05 [95% CI, 2.53-14.49].
This paper demonstrates the use of relative attrition as a new tool in systematic review methodology which has the potential to identify patient, intervention and trial characteristics which influences attrition in trials.
分析退出率及其出现的时间,可能会提供有关影响干预措施总体接受情况的患者特征和试验特征的重要信息。
我们检索了Medline和Cochrane图书馆,从数据库建立之初至2006年5月,查找已发表的系统评价,这些评价比较了非胰岛素依赖型2型糖尿病患者口服抗凝药的自我监测(自我检测)或自我管理(自我检测和自我给药)或自我监测血糖的效果。我们评估了随机分组前和随机分组后的所有研究退出情况,并收集了所有参与者退出的原因信息。为了衡量各亚组在损耗方面的差异,我们使用了相对损耗(RA),它等同于相对风险,但将损耗作为结果(即干预组的损耗/对照组的损耗)。我们确定了对照组和干预组的退出百分比,并使用DerSimonian和Laird随机效应模型来估计合并的相对损耗。用R(版本2.0.2)创建的L'abbe类型图来表示各试验中相对损耗的差异,其95%置信区间和权重来自随机效应模型。
在2型糖尿病患者自我监测血糖方面,干预组的损耗率为2.3%至50.0%,对照组为0%至40.4%。干预组和对照组之间无显著差异,总体RA为1.18[95%CI,0.70 - 2.01]。在口服抗凝药自我监测方面,干预组的损耗率为0%至43.2%,对照组为0%至21.4%。干预组的RA显著更高,合并RA为6.05[95%CI,2.53 - 14.49]。
本文展示了相对损耗作为系统评价方法中的一种新工具的应用,它有可能识别出影响试验中损耗的患者、干预措施和试验特征。