Suppr超能文献

乐观偏差导致结论不明确——一项实证研究。

Optimism bias leads to inconclusive results-an empirical study.

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Center for Evidence-based Medicine & Health Outcomes Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33612, USA.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Jun;64(6):583-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.007. Epub 2010 Dec 16.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Optimism bias refers to unwarranted belief in the efficacy of new therapies. We assessed the impact of optimism bias on a proportion of trials that did not answer their research question successfully and explored whether poor accrual or optimism bias is responsible for inconclusive results.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

Retrospective analysis of a consecutive-series phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed under the aegis of National Cancer Institute Cooperative groups.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-nine trials (374 comparisons) enrolling 150,232 patients were analyzed. Seventy percent (262 of 374) of the trials generated conclusive results according to the statistical criteria. Investigators made definitive statements related to the treatment preference in 73% (273 of 374) of studies. Investigators' judgments and statistical inferences were concordant in 75% (279 of 374) of trials. Investigators consistently overestimated their expected treatment effects but to a significantly larger extent for inconclusive trials. The median ratio of expected and observed hazard ratio or odds ratio was 1.34 (range: 0.19-15.40) in conclusive trials compared with 1.86 (range: 1.09-12.00) in inconclusive studies (P<0.0001). Only 17% of the trials had treatment effects that matched original researchers' expectations.

CONCLUSION

Formal statistical inference is sufficient to answer the research question in 75% of RCTs. The answers to the other 25% depend mostly on subjective judgments, which at times are in conflict with statistical inference. Optimism bias significantly contributes to inconclusive results.

摘要

目的

乐观偏差是指对新疗法疗效的不合理信念。我们评估了乐观偏差对部分未成功回答研究问题的试验的影响,并探讨了较差的入组率或乐观偏差是否是导致结果不确定的原因。

研究设计

系统评价。

设置

在国家癌症研究所合作组的支持下进行的连续系列 III 期随机对照试验(RCT)的回顾性分析。

结果

分析了 359 项试验(374 项比较),共纳入 150232 例患者。根据统计标准,70%(262/374)的试验得出了明确的结果。73%(273/374)的研究中,研究者对治疗偏好做出了明确的陈述。75%(279/374)的试验中,研究者的判断和统计推断是一致的。研究者对预期治疗效果的估计过高,但对不确定的试验过高的程度更大。在明确的试验中,预期和观察的风险比或优势比的中位数比值为 1.34(范围:0.19-15.40),而在不确定的研究中为 1.86(范围:1.09-12.00)(P<0.0001)。只有 17%的试验的治疗效果与原始研究人员的预期相符。

结论

在 75%的 RCT 中,正式的统计推断足以回答研究问题。其余 25%的答案主要取决于主观判断,有时与统计推断相冲突。乐观偏差是导致不确定结果的重要原因。

相似文献

1
Optimism bias leads to inconclusive results-an empirical study.乐观偏差导致结论不明确——一项实证研究。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Jun;64(6):583-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.007. Epub 2010 Dec 16.
4
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.

引用本文的文献

4
Back to the basics: Guidance for designing good literature searches.回归基础:设计高质量文献检索的指南。
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2024 Apr;20(4):463-468. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2024.01.009. Epub 2024 Jan 19.
7
Can Oncologists Predict the Efficacy of Treatments in Randomized Trials?肿瘤学家能否预测随机试验中治疗的疗效?
Oncologist. 2021 Jan;26(1):56-62. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2020-0054. Epub 2020 Aug 26.

本文引用的文献

2
Treatment success in cancer.癌症治疗的成功
Arch Intern Med. 2008 Oct 27;168(19):2173; author reply 2173-4. doi: 10.1001/archinte.168.19.2173-a.

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