Soltmann B, Pfennig A, Weikert B, Bauer M, Strech D
Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland.
Nervenarzt. 2012 May;83(5):604-17. doi: 10.1007/s00115-011-3418-0.
Selective publishing as well as inadequate reporting of clinical trials entail a risk of bias in clinical decision making. Therefore the CONSORT statement was introduced to improve the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCT). This study aimed to assess the quality of reporting of RCTs on pharmacological treatment of bipolar disorder in relation to publication period and endorsement of publication guidelines.
In the context of the development of the German evidence and consensus-based S3 guidelines for diagnosis and therapy of bipolar disorders a systematic literature search was carried out to identify all RCTs published between 2000 and 2010 relevant to the pharmacological treatment of bipolar disorders. An adapted checklist based on the CONSORT statement was used to assess the quality of reporting.
A total of 134 RCTs were included in this analysis. Of the 72 checklist items, 43% were generally reported adequately (reported in ≥ 75% of all trials) and 25% inadequately (reported in < 25% of all trials). Reporting was generally poor for randomization, effect size (reported in 22%) and number needed to treat (NNT 16%). No consistent trend could be shown for improvement in quality of reporting over time or for journals that do or do not endorse the URM (uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals).
Clinical investigators as well as editors and reviewers should be further encouraged to follow publication guidelines otherwise trials have to be downgraded or excluded from systematic evaluations.
临床试验的选择性发表以及报告不充分会导致临床决策出现偏差风险。因此,引入了CONSORT声明以提高随机对照试验(RCT)报告的质量。本研究旨在评估双相情感障碍药物治疗随机对照试验的报告质量与发表时间及发表指南认可情况之间的关系。
在制定德国基于证据和共识的双相情感障碍诊断与治疗S3指南的背景下,进行了系统的文献检索,以识别2000年至2010年间发表的所有与双相情感障碍药物治疗相关的随机对照试验。使用基于CONSORT声明改编的清单来评估报告质量。
本分析共纳入134项随机对照试验。在72项清单项目中,43%的项目报告总体充分(在所有试验的≥75%中报告),25%的项目报告不充分(在所有试验的<25%中报告)。随机化、效应大小(22%的试验报告)和需治疗人数(NNT为16%)的报告总体较差。随着时间推移,报告质量没有持续改善的趋势,对于认可或不认可URM(提交给生物医学期刊的稿件统一要求)的期刊也是如此。
应进一步鼓励临床研究人员以及编辑和审稿人遵循发表指南,否则试验必须降级或排除在系统评价之外。