文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
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
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
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 @ 2025

欠发达国家和发达国家随机试验中的比较效应大小:meta 流行病学评估。

Comparative effect sizes in randomised trials from less developed and more developed countries: meta-epidemiological assessment.

机构信息

Clinical Trials and Evidence-Based Medicine Unit, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, University Campus, Ioannina, Greece.

出版信息

BMJ. 2013 Feb 12;346:f707. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f707.


DOI:10.1136/bmj.f707
PMID:23403829
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3570069/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment effects from randomised trials conducted in more developed versus less developed countries. DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (August 2012). DATA EXTRACTION: Meta-analyses with mortality outcomes including data from at least one randomised trial conducted in a less developed country and one in a more developed country. Relative risk estimates of more versus less developed countries were compared by calculating the relative relative risks for each topic and the summary relative relative risks across all topics. Similar analyses were performed for the primary binary outcome of each topic. RESULTS: 139 meta-analyses with mortality outcomes were eligible. No nominally significant differences between more developed and less developed countries were found for 128 (92%) meta-analyses. However, differences were beyond chance in 11 (8%) cases, always showing more favourable treatment effects in trials from less developed countries. The summary relative relative risk was 1.12 (95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.18; P<0.001; I(2)=0%), suggesting significantly more favourable mortality effects in trials from less developed countries. Results were similar for meta-analyses with nominally significant treatment effects for mortality (1.15), meta-analyses with recent trials (1.14), and when excluding trials from less developed countries that subsequently became more developed (1.12). For the primary binary outcomes (127 meta-analyses), 20 topics had differences in treatment effects beyond chance (more favourable in less developed countries in 15/20 cases). CONCLUSIONS: Trials from less developed countries in a few cases show significantly more favourable treatment effects than trials in more developed countries and, on average, treatment effects are more favourable in less developed countries. These discrepancies may reflect biases in reporting or study design as well as genuine differences in baseline risk or treatment implementation and should be considers when generalising evidence across different settings.

摘要

目的:比较在较发达国家和较不发达国家进行的随机试验的治疗效果。 设计:meta 流行病学研究。 数据来源:Cochrane 系统评价数据库(2012 年 8 月)。 数据提取:对死亡率结局的 meta 分析,包括至少一项在较不发达国家和一项在较发达国家进行的随机试验的数据。通过计算每个主题的相对相对风险和所有主题的汇总相对相对风险,比较较发达国家和较不发达国家的相对风险估计值。对每个主题的主要二分类结局进行了类似的分析。 结果:有 139 项死亡率结局的 meta 分析符合条件。在 128 项 meta 分析(92%)中,没有发现较发达国家和较不发达国家之间存在显著差异。然而,在 11 项 meta 分析(8%)中,差异超出了偶然范围,总是显示出来自较不发达国家的试验有更有利的治疗效果。汇总相对相对风险为 1.12(95%置信区间 1.06 至 1.18;P<0.001;I(2)=0%),提示来自较不发达国家的试验的死亡率有更有利的影响。对于死亡率有显著治疗效果的 meta 分析(1.15)、最近试验的 meta 分析(1.14)以及排除来自较不发达国家的试验的 meta 分析(这些试验后来变得更发达)(1.12),结果相似。对于主要的二分类结局(127 项 meta 分析),20 个主题的治疗效果差异超出了偶然范围(在 15/20 个病例中,来自较不发达国家的治疗效果更有利)。 结论:在少数情况下,来自较不发达国家的试验比来自较发达国家的试验显示出显著更有利的治疗效果,并且平均而言,较不发达国家的治疗效果更有利。这些差异可能反映了报告或研究设计方面的偏差,以及基线风险或治疗实施方面的真正差异,在将证据推广到不同环境时应加以考虑。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/51fef6f0a8b5/pano006426.f12_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/953a7a2af555/pano006426.f1_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/6558d84816e3/pano006426.f2_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/b00c43daf7ce/pano006426.f3_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/31e6cdf65a53/pano006426.f4_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/3c5cce84737f/pano006426.f5_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/a24fa6d1bfbb/pano006426.f6_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/46c0403786e6/pano006426.f7_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/22c44262f977/pano006426.f8_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/dfe4e0eea19e/pano006426.f9_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/20b655a11a33/pano006426.f10_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/c3e613a815ad/pano006426.f11_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/51fef6f0a8b5/pano006426.f12_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/953a7a2af555/pano006426.f1_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/6558d84816e3/pano006426.f2_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/b00c43daf7ce/pano006426.f3_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/31e6cdf65a53/pano006426.f4_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/3c5cce84737f/pano006426.f5_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/a24fa6d1bfbb/pano006426.f6_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/46c0403786e6/pano006426.f7_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/22c44262f977/pano006426.f8_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/dfe4e0eea19e/pano006426.f9_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/20b655a11a33/pano006426.f10_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/c3e613a815ad/pano006426.f11_default.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb3d/4790805/51fef6f0a8b5/pano006426.f12_default.jpg

相似文献

[1]
Comparative effect sizes in randomised trials from less developed and more developed countries: meta-epidemiological assessment.

BMJ. 2013-2-12

[2]
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-2-1

[3]
Comparative rates of harms in randomized trials from more developed versus less developed countries may be different.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2016-10

[4]
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.

Early Hum Dev. 2020-11

[5]
Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014-10-1

[6]
Non-medical prescribing versus medical prescribing for acute and chronic disease management in primary and secondary care.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016-11-22

[7]
Comparative evidence on harms in pediatric randomized clinical trials from less developed versus more developed countries is limited.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2017-11-28

[8]
Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024-1-4

[9]

2015-9

[10]
Uterotonic agents for preventing postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-4-25

引用本文的文献

[1]
The methodological quality of clinical trials of physical therapy for low back pain varies between countries with different income levels. A meta-epidemiological study.

Braz J Phys Ther. 2024

[2]
Language bias in orthodontic systematic reviews: A meta-epidemiological study.

PLoS One. 2024

[3]
Does Proximal Adductor Canal Block Provide Better Analgesic Efficacy than Distal Adductor Canal Block in Patients Undergoing Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Orthop Surg. 2024-5

[4]
Are the results of open randomised controlled trials comparing antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia biased? Exploratory meta- and subgroup analysis.

Schizophrenia (Heidelb). 2024-2-15

[5]
Sensitivity analysis with iterative outlier detection for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Stat Med. 2024-4-15

[6]
Change over Five Years in Important Measures of Methodological Quality and Reporting in Randomized Cardiovascular Clinical Trials.

J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2023-12-21

[7]
Improving mental health following multiple disasters in Australia: a randomized controlled trial of the Skills for Life Adjustment and Resilience (SOLAR) programme.

Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2023

[8]
Studies with statistically significant effect estimates are more frequently published compared to non-significant estimates in oral health journals.

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023-1-9

[9]
Randomized controlled trials in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and critical appraisal.

Int J Infect Dis. 2022-9

[10]
Does vaginal progesterone prevent recurrent preterm birth in women with a singleton gestation and a history of spontaneous preterm birth? Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022-9

本文引用的文献

[1]
Alternative versus standard packages of antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015-7-16

[2]
Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials.

Ann Intern Med. 2012-9-18

[3]
Probiotics for patients with hepatic encephalopathy.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011-11-9

[4]
Progress towards Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5 on maternal and child mortality: an updated systematic analysis.

Lancet. 2011-9-19

[5]
Claims for improved survival from systemic corticosteroids in diverse conditions: an umbrella review.

Eur J Clin Invest. 2011-8-31

[6]
Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.

BMJ. 2011-7-22

[7]
Statistically significant meta-analyses of clinical trials have modest credibility and inflated effects.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2011-3-31

[8]
Transarterial (chemo)embolisation for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011-3-16

[9]
GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias).

J Clin Epidemiol. 2011-1-19

[10]
Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: radiotherapy.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010-12-8

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索