• 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

如何改进全球心血管疾病大规模临床试验的证据?

How Can the Evidence from Global Large-scale Clinical Trials for Cardiovascular Diseases be Improved?

作者信息

Sawata Hiroshi, Tsutani Kiichiro

机构信息

Department of Drug Policy and Management, Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.

出版信息

BMC Res Notes. 2011 Jun 29;4:222. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-4-222.

DOI:10.1186/1756-0500-4-222
PMID:21714928
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3224457/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Clinical investigations are important for obtaining evidence to improve medical treatment. Large-scale clinical trials with thousands of participants are particularly important for this purpose in cardiovascular diseases. Conducting large-scale clinical trials entails high research costs. This study sought to investigate global trends in large-scale clinical trials in cardiovascular diseases.

FINDINGS

We searched for trials using clinicaltrials.gov (URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/) using the key words 'cardio' and 'event' in all fields on 10 April, 2010. We then selected trials with 300 or more participants examining cardiovascular diseases. The search revealed 344 trials that met our criteria. Of 344 trials, 71% were randomized controlled trials, 15% involved more than 10,000 participants, and 59% were funded by industry. In RCTs whose results were disclosed, 55% of industry-funded trials and 25% of non-industry funded trials reported statistically significant superiority over control (p = 0.012, 2-sided Fisher's exact test).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlighted concerns regarding potential bias related to funding sources, and that researchers should be aware of the importance of trial information disclosures and conflicts of interest. We should keep considering management and training regarding information disclosures and conflicts of interest for researchers. This could lead to better clinical evidence and further improvements in the development of medical treatment worldwide.

摘要

背景

临床研究对于获取改善医疗的证据至关重要。在心血管疾病领域,涉及数千名参与者的大规模临床试验对于实现这一目的尤为重要。开展大规模临床试验需要高昂的研究成本。本研究旨在调查心血管疾病大规模临床试验的全球趋势。

研究结果

我们于2010年4月10日在ClinicalTrials.gov(网址:http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/)上使用关键词“心脏”和“事件”在所有字段中搜索试验。然后我们选择了300名或更多参与者的心血管疾病试验。搜索结果显示有344项试验符合我们的标准。在这344项试验中,71%为随机对照试验,15%涉及超过10000名参与者,59%由行业资助。在已披露结果的随机对照试验中,55%的行业资助试验和25%的非行业资助试验报告了相对于对照组具有统计学意义的优越性(双侧Fisher精确检验,p = 0.012)。

结论

我们的研究结果突出了对与资金来源相关潜在偏倚的担忧,并且研究人员应意识到试验信息披露和利益冲突的重要性。我们应持续考虑针对研究人员的信息披露和利益冲突的管理与培训。这可能会带来更好的临床证据,并在全球范围内进一步改善医疗发展。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/eb79/3224457/80dd11d457af/1756-0500-4-222-3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/eb79/3224457/3b91a6284fb0/1756-0500-4-222-1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/eb79/3224457/4d797c150d6b/1756-0500-4-222-2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/eb79/3224457/80dd11d457af/1756-0500-4-222-3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/eb79/3224457/3b91a6284fb0/1756-0500-4-222-1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/eb79/3224457/4d797c150d6b/1756-0500-4-222-2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/eb79/3224457/80dd11d457af/1756-0500-4-222-3.jpg

相似文献

1
How Can the Evidence from Global Large-scale Clinical Trials for Cardiovascular Diseases be Improved?如何改进全球心血管疾病大规模临床试验的证据?
BMC Res Notes. 2011 Jun 29;4:222. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-4-222.
2
Limited accessibility to designs and results of Japanese large-scale clinical trials for cardiovascular diseases.日本心血管疾病大规模临床试验的设计和结果获取受限。
Trials. 2011 Apr 14;12:96. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-96.
3
Funding and infrastructure among large-scale clinical trials examining cardiovascular diseases in Japan: evidence from a questionnaire survey.日本大规模临床试验中关于心血管疾病的资金和基础设施:一项问卷调查研究证据。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Nov 1;11:148. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-148.
4
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
5
Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments.报告药物治疗试验荟萃分析中的利益冲突。
JAMA. 2011 Mar 9;305(10):1008-17. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.257.
6
Association of industry funding with the outcome and quality of randomized controlled trials of drug therapy for rheumatoid arthritis.产业资助与类风湿关节炎药物治疗随机对照试验的结果及质量的关联
Arthritis Rheum. 2012 Jul;64(7):2059-67. doi: 10.1002/art.34393.
7
American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement: oversight of clinical research.美国临床肿瘤学会政策声明:临床研究监督
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun 15;21(12):2377-86. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.026. Epub 2003 Apr 29.
8
Outcome reporting among drug trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.临床试验注册中心登记的药物试验结局报告。
Ann Intern Med. 2010 Aug 3;153(3):158-66. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-153-3-201008030-00006.
9
Factors Associated With Age Disparities Among Cancer Clinical Trial Participants.与癌症临床试验参与者年龄差异相关的因素。
JAMA Oncol. 2019 Dec 1;5(12):1769-1773. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2055.
10
Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular oedema.抗血管内皮生长因子治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Oct 24(10):CD007419. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007419.pub4.

引用本文的文献

1
Does Receiving Information on Clinical Trials Affect Patients' Condition?接收临床试验信息会影响患者病情吗?
J Clin Med Res. 2025 May;17(5):247-255. doi: 10.14740/jocmr6252. Epub 2025 May 28.
2
Modified dietary fat intake for treatment of gallstone disease in people of any age.改变饮食中的脂肪摄入治疗任何年龄人群的胆石病。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Feb 6;2(2):CD012608. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012608.pub3.
3
Industry sponsorship and research outcome.行业赞助与研究成果。

本文引用的文献

1
Limited accessibility to designs and results of Japanese large-scale clinical trials for cardiovascular diseases.日本心血管疾病大规模临床试验的设计和结果获取受限。
Trials. 2011 Apr 14;12:96. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-96.
2
Industry-supported meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses with non-profit or no support: differences in methodological quality and conclusions.与由非营利组织支持或无支持的荟萃分析相比,行业支持的荟萃分析:方法学质量和结论的差异。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Sep 9;8:60. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-60.
3
Is there evidence for biased reporting of published adverse effects data in pharmaceutical industry-funded studies?
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 16;2(2):MR000033. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3.
在制药行业资助的研究中,是否存在已发表的不良反应数据报告存在偏差的证据?
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008 Dec;66(6):767-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2008.03272.x. Epub 2008 Jul 31.
4
Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review.Cochrane系统评价与行业支持的Meta分析及相同药物的其他Meta分析的比较:系统评价
BMJ. 2006 Oct 14;333(7572):782. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38973.444699.0B. Epub 2006 Oct 6.
5
Reported outcomes in major cardiovascular clinical trials funded by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations: 2000-2005.营利性和非营利性组织资助的主要心血管临床试验报告的结果:2000 - 2005年。
JAMA. 2006 May 17;295(19):2270-4. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.19.2270.
6
Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.临床试验注册:国际医学期刊编辑委员会声明
N Engl J Med. 2004 Sep 16;351(12):1250-1. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe048225. Epub 2004 Sep 8.
7
Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events?随机药物试验中资金与结论的关联:是治疗效果还是不良事件的反映?
JAMA. 2003 Aug 20;290(7):921-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.7.921.
8
Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review.制药行业赞助与研究结果及质量:系统评价
BMJ. 2003 May 31;326(7400):1167-70. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167.
9
The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research.不确定性原理与行业资助研究。
Lancet. 2000 Aug 19;356(9230):635-8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02605-2.
10
MRC trial of treatment of mild hypertension: principal results. Medical Research Council Working Party.医学研究委员会轻度高血压治疗试验:主要结果。医学研究委员会工作组
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1985 Jul 13;291(6488):97-104. doi: 10.1136/bmj.291.6488.97.