Suppr超能文献

吸入性哮喘药物临床试验中的患者报告结局:系统评价和研究需求。

Patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials of inhaled asthma medications: systematic review and research needs.

机构信息

Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), School of Medicine, University of Southampton, 1st Floor, Epsilon House, Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.

出版信息

Qual Life Res. 2011 Apr;20(3):343-57. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9750-1. Epub 2010 Oct 14.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To assess the diversity, application, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in asthma clinical trials.

METHODS

We critically appraised the use of asthma-specific PROs in 87 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of inhaled asthma medications published during 1985-2006.

RESULTS

A total of 79 RCTs reported PROs, of which 78 (99%) assessed symptom scores and seven (9%) assessed asthma quality of life scores. Only eight (10%) used validated instruments and five (6%) provided clinical interpretation of scores. Due to heterogeneity in the reporting of symptom measures, it is not possible to determine how many discrete symptom assessment instruments have been used. Only 26 (33%) of the RCTs that measured symptom scores reported the scores for follow-up. Limited improvement occurred over time: fewer than 30% of the RCTs used validated PRO measures in any individual year.

CONCLUSION

Numerous validated PRO instruments are available but it is unclear why few are used in asthma clinical trials. Problems include poor reporting, and uncritical analysis and interpretation of PRO scores. Research needs include identifying and recommending a set of PROs for use in asthma clinical research and providing guidance for researchers on the application, analysis and interpretation of PRO measures in clinical trials.

摘要

目的

评估哮喘临床试验中患者报告结局(PRO)的多样性、应用、分析和解释。

方法

我们批判性地评估了 1985 年至 2006 年期间发表的 87 项吸入性哮喘药物随机对照试验(RCT)中哮喘特异性 PRO 的使用情况。

结果

共有 79 项 RCT 报告了 PRO,其中 78 项(99%)评估了症状评分,7 项(9%)评估了哮喘生活质量评分。只有 8 项(10%)使用了经过验证的工具,5 项(6%)对评分进行了临床解释。由于症状测量报告的异质性,无法确定已经使用了多少种离散的症状评估工具。仅 26 项(33%)测量症状评分的 RCT 报告了随访评分。随着时间的推移,改善有限:在任何一年,只有不到 30%的 RCT 使用经过验证的 PRO 措施。

结论

有许多经过验证的 PRO 工具可供使用,但不清楚为什么在哮喘临床试验中很少使用。问题包括报告不佳,以及对 PRO 评分的分析和解释不严谨。研究需求包括确定和推荐一组用于哮喘临床研究的 PRO,并为研究人员提供临床试验中 PRO 措施的应用、分析和解释的指导。

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