• 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

参与随机对照试验的患者与接受类似干预但未参与试验的类似患者的结局比较。

Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate.

作者信息

Vist Gunn Elisabeth, Bryant Dianne, Somerville Lyndsay, Birminghem Trevor, Oxman Andrew D

机构信息

Department of Evidence-Based Health Services, Norwegian Knowledge Centre for Health Services, PO Box 7004, St Olavs Plass, Oslo, Norway, 0130.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jul 16;2008(3):MR000009. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000009.pub4.

DOI:10.1002/14651858.MR000009.pub4
PMID:18677782
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8276557/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Some people believe that patients who take part in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) face risks that they would not face if they opted for non-trial treatment. Others think that trial participation is beneficial and the best way to ensure access to the most up-to-date physicians and treatments. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2005.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient participation in RCTs ('trial effects') independent both of the effects of the clinical treatments being compared ('treatment effects') and any differences between patients who participated in RCTs and those who did not. We aimed to compare similar patients receiving similar treatment inside and outside of RCTs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In March 2007, we searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Methodology Register, SciSearch and PsycINFO for potentially relevant studies. Our search yielded 7586 new references. In addition, we reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized studies and cohort studies with data on clinical outcomes of RCT participants and similar patients who received similar treatment outside of RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed study quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 30 new non-randomized cohort studies (45 comparisons): no new RCTs were found. This update now includes five RCTs (yielding 6 comparisons) and 80 non-randomized cohort studies (130 comparisons), with 86,640 patients treated in RCTs and 57,205 patients treated outside RCTs. In the randomised studies, patients were invited to participate in an RCT or not; these comparisons provided limited information because of small sample sizes (a total of 412 patients) and the nature of the questions they addressed. When the results of RCTs and non-randomized cohorts that reported dichotomous outcomes were combined, there were 98 comparisons; there was also heterogeneity (P < 0.00001, I(2) = 42.2%) between studies. No statistical significant differences were found for 85 of the 98 comparisons. Eight comparisons reported statistically significant better outcomes for patients treated within RCTs, and five comparisons reported statistically significant worse outcomes for patients treated within RCTs. There was significant heterogeneity (P < 0.00001, I(2) = 58.2%) among the 38 continuous outcome comparisons. No statistically significant differences were found for 30 of the 38 comparisons. Three comparisons reported statistically significant better outcomes for patients treated within RCTs, and five comparisons reported statistically significant worse outcomes for patients treated within RCTs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review indicates that participation in RCTs is associated with similar outcomes to receiving the same treatment outside RCTs. These results challenge the assertion that the results of RCTs are not applicable to usual practice.

摘要

背景

一些人认为,参与随机对照试验(RCT)的患者面临着选择非试验性治疗时不会面临的风险。另一些人则认为参与试验是有益的,并且是确保获得最新医生和治疗方法的最佳途径。这是2005年第1期发表的原始Cochrane综述的更新版本。

目的

评估患者参与RCT的效果(“试验效果”),独立于所比较的临床治疗效果(“治疗效果”)以及参与RCT的患者与未参与RCT的患者之间的任何差异。我们旨在比较在RCT内外接受相似治疗的相似患者。

检索策略

2007年3月,我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane方法学注册库、SciSearch和PsycINFO,以查找潜在的相关研究。我们的检索产生了7586条新参考文献。此外,我们还查阅了相关文章的参考文献列表。

选择标准

具有RCT参与者以及在RCT之外接受相似治疗的相似患者临床结局数据的随机研究和队列研究。

数据收集与分析

至少两名综述作者独立评估研究是否纳入、评估研究质量并提取数据。

主要结果

我们确定了30项新的非随机队列研究(45项比较):未发现新的RCT。此次更新现在包括5项RCT(产生6项比较)和80项非随机队列研究(130项比较),有86640名患者在RCT中接受治疗,57205名患者在RCT之外接受治疗。在随机研究中,患者被邀请参与或不参与RCT;由于样本量小(总共412名患者)以及所涉及问题的性质,这些比较提供的信息有限。当报告二分结局的RCT和非随机队列的结果合并时,有98项比较;研究之间也存在异质性(P<0.00001,I²=42.2%)。98项比较中有85项未发现统计学显著差异。8项比较报告RCT内治疗的患者结局在统计学上显著更好,5项比较报告RCT内治疗的患者结局在统计学上显著更差。在38项连续结局比较中存在显著异质性(P<0.00001,I²=58.2%)。38项比较中有30项未发现统计学显著差异。3项比较报告RCT内治疗的患者结局在统计学上显著更好,5项比较报告RCT内治疗的患者结局在统计学上显著更差。

作者结论

本综述表明,参与RCT与在RCT之外接受相同治疗具有相似的结局。这些结果挑战了RCT结果不适用于常规实践的观点。

相似文献

1
Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate.参与随机对照试验的患者与接受类似干预但未参与试验的类似患者的结局比较。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jul 16;2008(3):MR000009. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000009.pub4.
2
Outcomes of patients who participate in randomised controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate.与接受类似干预但未参与的类似患者相比,参与随机对照试验的患者的结局。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18(2):MR000009. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000009.pub3.
3
Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.转移性皮肤黑色素瘤的全身治疗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 6;2(2):CD011123. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011123.pub2.
4
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.系统性药理学治疗慢性斑块状银屑病:网络荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 19;4(4):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub4.
5
Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.电子烟戒烟。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jan 8;1(1):CD010216. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub8.
6
Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.电子烟戒烟。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Nov 17;11(11):CD010216. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub7.
7
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.
8
Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.电子烟戒烟。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Sep 14;9(9):CD010216. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub6.
9
Incentives for preventing smoking in children and adolescents.预防儿童和青少年吸烟的激励措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 6;6(6):CD008645. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008645.pub3.
10
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.

引用本文的文献

1
Assessment of Knowledge, Perception, Experience, and Phobia Toward Corticosteroids Among the General Public in Two Southeast Asian Countries.两个东南亚国家公众对皮质类固醇的知识、认知、经验及恐惧评估
Inquiry. 2025 Jan-Dec;62:469580251333968. doi: 10.1177/00469580251333968. Epub 2025 Apr 24.
2
Outcomes of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Transplant-Ineligible Multiple Myeloma According to Clinical Trials Enrollment: Experience of a Single Institution.根据临床试验入组情况分析新诊断的不适合移植的多发性骨髓瘤患者的预后:单中心经验
Cancers (Basel). 2023 Nov 2;15(21):5261. doi: 10.3390/cancers15215261.
3
Effect of research participation versus usual clinical care in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disorders: a prospective cohort study.研究参与与风湿和肌肉骨骼疾病患者常规临床护理的效果:一项前瞻性队列研究。
RMD Open. 2023 Oct;9(4). doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003414.
4
Low glycaemic index or low glycaemic load diets for people with overweight or obesity.低升糖指数或低升糖负荷饮食用于超重或肥胖人群。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Jun 22;6(6):CD005105. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005105.pub3.
5
Factors associated with clinical trial participation for patients with renal cell carcinoma.与肾细胞癌患者参与临床试验相关的因素。
Urol Oncol. 2023 Apr;41(4):208.e1-208.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2023.01.022. Epub 2023 Mar 1.
6
Benefits of Participation in Clinical Trials: An Umbrella Review.参与临床试验的益处:伞式综述。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Nov 21;19(22):15368. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192215368.
7
Targeted temperature management evolving over time-A local process analysis.目标温度管理的演变——一项局部流程分析。
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2022 Oct;66(9):1116-1123. doi: 10.1111/aas.14125. Epub 2022 Aug 16.
8
Participation in obstetrical studies is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes.参与产科研究与改善妊娠结局相关。
Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022 Nov;4(6):100729. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100729. Epub 2022 Aug 19.
9
Enhancing Trial Delivery in Parkinson's Disease: Qualitative Insights from PD STAT.改善帕金森病试验的实施:来自帕金森病 STAT 研究的定性见解
J Parkinsons Dis. 2022;12(5):1591-1604. doi: 10.3233/JPD-212987.
10
Giving and taking: ethical treatment assignment in controlled trials.给予和获取:对照试验中的伦理治疗分配。
J R Soc Med. 2021 Nov;114(11):525-530. doi: 10.1177/01410768211049972.

本文引用的文献

1
Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials.随机化以防止医疗保健试验中的选择偏倚。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Apr 13;2011(4):MR000012. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000012.pub3.
2
Non-randomised patients in a cholecystectomy trial: characteristics, procedures, and outcomes.胆囊切除术试验中的非随机分组患者:特征、手术过程及结果。
BMC Surg. 2006 Dec 26;6:17. doi: 10.1186/1471-2482-6-17.
3
ADCS Prevention Instrument Project: pilot testing of a book club as a psychosocial intervention and recruitment and retention strategy.ADCS预防工具项目:作为一种社会心理干预及招募与留存策略的读书俱乐部的试点测试。
Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2006 Oct-Dec;20(4 Suppl 3):S203-8. doi: 10.1097/01.wad.0000213876.70794.c6.
4
Development and validation of a computerized expert system for evaluation of automated visual fields from the Ischemic Optic Neuropathy Decompression Trial.缺血性视神经病变减压试验中用于评估自动视野的计算机专家系统的开发与验证
BMC Ophthalmol. 2006 Nov 20;6:34. doi: 10.1186/1471-2415-6-34.
5
Acupuncture in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip: a randomized, controlled trial with an additional nonrandomized arm.膝关节或髋关节骨关节炎患者的针灸治疗:一项包含额外非随机组的随机对照试验
Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Nov;54(11):3485-93. doi: 10.1002/art.22154.
6
Analysis of the burden of treatment in patients receiving an EpiPen for yellow jacket anaphylaxis.接受肾上腺素自动注射器(EpiPen)治疗黄蜂过敏反应患者的治疗负担分析。
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006 Sep;118(3):699-704. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2006.03.049. Epub 2006 Jul 20.
7
Evaluation of surgical volume and the early experience with lumbar total disc replacement as part of the investigational device exemption study of the Charité Artificial Disc.作为Charité人工椎间盘研究性器械豁免研究的一部分,对手术量及腰椎全椎间盘置换的早期经验进行评估。
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Sep 1;31(19):2270-6. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000234726.55383.0c.
8
Pragmatic randomized trial evaluating the clinical and economic effectiveness of acupuncture for chronic low back pain.评估针刺疗法对慢性下腰痛临床及经济效益的实用性随机试验。
Am J Epidemiol. 2006 Sep 1;164(5):487-96. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwj224. Epub 2006 Jun 23.
9
Acupuncture for patients with chronic neck pain.针灸治疗慢性颈部疼痛患者。
Pain. 2006 Nov;125(1-2):98-106. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.05.013. Epub 2006 Jun 14.
10
A comparison of socio-demographic and psychological factors between patients consenting to randomisation and those selecting treatment (the ProtecT study).同意随机分组的患者与选择治疗的患者之间社会人口学和心理因素的比较(ProtecT研究)
Contemp Clin Trials. 2006 Oct;27(5):413-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2006.04.008. Epub 2006 May 4.