• 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

麻醉师使用 SHAM(严重伤害和发病)量表评估安慰剂神经阻滞研究的风险。

Anaesthetists' risk assessment of placebo nerve block studies using the SHAM (Serious Harm and Morbidity) scale.

机构信息

Department of Children's Anaesthesia, Women's and Children's Hospital, North Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

出版信息

Anaesthesia. 2012 Apr;67(4):361-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06998.x. Epub 2012 Feb 13.

DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06998.x
PMID:22329573
Abstract

The SHAM (Serious Harm and Morbidity) scale was developed to categorise the severity of potential complications of placebo control interventions in the context of local anaesthesia research. A convenience sample of 43 anaesthetists used the SHAM scale to grade ten published randomised controlled trials investigating local anaesthesia nerve blocks. The Fleiss κ statistic assessed agreement between these anaesthetists and probability of random agreement (Pr(e)) when using the SHAM scale; a κ > 0 shows concordance between assessors above random agreement. Overall κ was 0.50 (95% CI 0.49-0.51, p < 0.001), Pr(e) = 0.21. There was moderate agreement between assessors in determining whether studies were low-risk (SHAM score 0-2) or high-risk (SHAM score 3-4) (κ 0.60 (95% CI 0.58-0.62), Pr(e) = 0.51). Compared with anaesthetists given clinical examples of interventions when applying the SHAM score, anaesthetists who were not given examples showed significantly less inter-individual agreement (κ 0.76 (95% CI 0.72-0.81), Pr(e) = 0.5 vs 0.45 (95% CI 0.41-0.49), Pr(e) = 0.52, p < 0.0001). These results suggest that the SHAM score can be successfully used to grade the severity of potential complications of placebo-controlled interventions in local anaesthesia research and represent a first step towards the score's validation.

摘要

SHAM(严重伤害和发病)量表旨在对局部麻醉研究中安慰剂对照干预潜在并发症的严重程度进行分类。43 名麻醉师对 10 项已发表的局部麻醉神经阻滞随机对照试验使用 SHAM 量表进行了分级。Fleiss κ 统计评估了这些麻醉师之间的一致性以及使用 SHAM 量表时随机一致性的概率(Pr(e));κ>0 表示评估者之间的一致性高于随机一致性。总体 κ 值为 0.50(95%CI 0.49-0.51,p<0.001),Pr(e)=0.21。评估者在确定研究是低风险(SHAM 评分 0-2)还是高风险(SHAM 评分 3-4)方面具有中等一致性(κ 值为 0.60(95%CI 0.58-0.62),Pr(e)=0.51)。与应用 SHAM 评分时给予临床干预示例的麻醉师相比,未给予示例的麻醉师之间的个体间一致性明显较低(κ 值为 0.76(95%CI 0.72-0.81),Pr(e)=0.5 与 0.45(95%CI 0.41-0.49),Pr(e)=0.52,p<0.0001)。这些结果表明,SHAM 评分可成功用于对局部麻醉研究中安慰剂对照干预潜在并发症的严重程度进行分级,这是该评分验证的第一步。

相似文献

1
Anaesthetists' risk assessment of placebo nerve block studies using the SHAM (Serious Harm and Morbidity) scale.麻醉师使用 SHAM(严重伤害和发病)量表评估安慰剂神经阻滞研究的风险。
Anaesthesia. 2012 Apr;67(4):361-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06998.x. Epub 2012 Feb 13.
2
Use of invasive placebos in research on local anaesthetic interventions.在局部麻醉干预研究中使用侵入性安慰剂。
Anaesthesia. 2011 Feb;66(2):84-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06560.x.
3
Placebo blocks in local anaesthesia studies: the need for balance.局部麻醉研究中的安慰剂组:平衡的必要性。
Anaesthesia. 2011 May;66(5):390-2; author reply 392-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06736.x.
4
Design and validation of the Regional Anaesthesia Procedural Skills Assessment Tool.区域麻醉程序技能评估工具的设计与验证。
Anaesthesia. 2015 Dec;70(12):1401-11. doi: 10.1111/anae.13266.
5
Improvement in the quality of randomized controlled trials among general anesthesiology journals 2000 to 2006: a 6-year follow-up.2000年至2006年普通麻醉学杂志随机对照试验质量的改善:一项为期6年的随访研究。
Anesth Analg. 2009 Jun;108(6):1916-21. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31819fe6d7.
6
Reliability of the assessment of preventable adverse drug events in daily clinical practice.日常临床实践中可预防药物不良事件评估的可靠性
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008 Jul;17(7):645-54. doi: 10.1002/pds.1586.
7
What is the risk of sham surgery in Parkinson disease clinical trials? A review of published reports.帕金森病临床试验中假手术的风险是什么?对已发表报告的综述。
Neurology. 2005 Oct 11;65(7):1101-3. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000171957.90640.b5. Epub 2005 Jul 20.
8
Regional anaesthesia for limb surgery: a review of anaesthetists' beliefs and practice in the Oxford region.肢体手术的区域麻醉:牛津地区麻醉医生的观念与实践综述
Anaesthesia. 2008 Jun;63(6):621-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05447.x.
9
Control group bias in randomized atypical antipsychotic medication trials for schizophrenia.精神分裂症随机非典型抗精神病药物试验中的对照组偏倚。
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005 Sep;62(9):961-70. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.62.9.961.
10
Using randomized controlled trial data, the agreement between retrospectively and prospectively collected data comprising the pneumonia severity index was substantial.利用随机对照试验数据,回顾性收集的数据与前瞻性收集的包含肺炎严重程度指数的数据之间具有高度一致性。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Apr;58(4):357-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.08.011.

引用本文的文献

1
Transversus Abdominis Plane Block Appears to Be Effective and Safe as a Part of Multimodal Analgesia in Bariatric Surgery: a Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.腹横肌平面阻滞作为肥胖症手术多模式镇痛的一部分似乎是有效和安全的:一项随机对照试验的荟萃分析和系统评价。
Obes Surg. 2021 Feb;31(2):531-543. doi: 10.1007/s11695-020-04973-8. Epub 2020 Oct 21.
2
Ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block for laparoscopic gastric-bypass surgery: a prospective randomized controlled double-blinded trial.超声引导腹横肌平面(TAP)阻滞用于腹腔镜胃旁路手术:一项前瞻性随机对照双盲试验。
Obes Surg. 2013 Aug;23(8):1309-14. doi: 10.1007/s11695-013-0958-3.