Suppr超能文献

为何针对非去白细胞异体输血与术后感染之间关联的随机对照试验的荟萃分析会产生不一致的结果?

Why have meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of the association between non-white-blood-cell-reduced allogeneic blood transfusion and postoperative infection produced discordant results?

作者信息

Vamvakas E C

机构信息

Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

出版信息

Vox Sang. 2007 Oct;93(3):196-207. doi: 10.1111/j.1423-0410.2007.00959.x.

Abstract

Intention-to-treat analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the association between non-white-blood-cell (WBC)-reduced allogeneic blood transfusion (ABT) and postoperative infection were reported as the reason why meta-analyses of RCTs of this association have produced discordant results. We examined three possible reasons for disagreements between meta-analyses: (i) sources of medical heterogeneity and integration of RCTs despite extreme heterogeneity; (ii) reliance on as-treated (vs. intention-to-treat) comparisons; and (iii) inclusion (or not) of the three most recent RCTs. When nine RCTs reported up to 2002 were combined despite extreme heterogeneity, both intention-to-treat and as-treated comparisons found an association between non-WBC-reduced ABT and postoperative infection [summary odds ratio (OR) = 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.85, P < 0.05; and summary OR = 1.56, 95% CI 1.06-2.31, P < 0.05, respectively]. When 12 RCTs reported up to 2005 were integrated despite extreme heterogeneity, both intention-to-treat and as-treated comparisons found no association of non-WBC-reduced ABT with postoperative infection (summary OR = 1.24, 95% CI 0.98-1.56, P > 0.05; and summary OR = 1.31, 95% CI 0.98-1.75, P > 0.05, respectively). In both analyses, the separate integration of four RCTs transfusing red blood cells (RBCs) or whole blood filtered after storage showed an association between non-WBC-reduced ABT and postoperative infection, whereas the separate integration of six (or nine) RCTs, reported through 2002 or 2005, and transfusing prestorage-filtered RBCs showed no association, whether intention-to-treat or as-treated comparisons were used. Thus, the published meta-analyses have produced discordant results because they did (or did not) investigate medical sources of heterogeneity and did (or did not) include the most recent RCTs. Intention-to-treat and as-treated comparisons produced concordant results.

摘要

非白细胞减少的异体输血(ABT)与术后感染之间关联的随机对照试验(RCT)的意向性分析被报告为该关联的RCT荟萃分析产生不一致结果的原因。我们研究了荟萃分析之间存在分歧的三个可能原因:(i)医学异质性的来源以及尽管存在极端异质性仍对RCT进行整合;(ii)依赖实际治疗(相对于意向性治疗)比较;以及(iii)是否纳入最近的三项RCT。当对截至2002年报告的9项RCT进行合并时,尽管存在极端异质性,但意向性治疗和实际治疗比较均发现非白细胞减少的ABT与术后感染之间存在关联[汇总比值比(OR)= 1.38,95%置信区间(CI)1.03 - 1.85,P < 0.05;汇总OR = 1.56,95% CI 1.06 - 2.31,P < 0.05,分别]。当对截至2005年报告的12项RCT进行合并时,尽管存在极端异质性,但意向性治疗和实际治疗比较均未发现非白细胞减少的ABT与术后感染之间存在关联(汇总OR = 1.24,95% CI 0.98 - 1.56,P > 0.05;汇总OR = 1.31,95% CI 0.98 - 1.75,P > 0.05,分别)。在这两项分析中,对四项输注红细胞(RBC)或储存后过滤的全血的RCT进行单独整合时,发现非白细胞减少的ABT与术后感染之间存在关联,而对截至2002年或2005年报告的六项(或九项)输注储存前过滤的RBC的RCT进行单独整合时,无论采用意向性治疗还是实际治疗比较,均未发现关联。因此,已发表的荟萃分析产生了不一致的结果,因为它们对(或未对)医学异质性来源进行调查,并且对(或未对)最近的RCT进行纳入。意向性治疗和实际治疗比较产生了一致的结果。

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