Suppr超能文献

2000-2010 年精神分裂症和情感障碍随机对照试验中盲法评估的系统评价。

Systematic review of blinding assessment in randomized controlled trials in schizophrenia and affective disorders 2000-2010.

机构信息

Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Cologne Medical School, Cologne, Germany.

出版信息

Psychother Psychosom. 2013;82(3):152-60. doi: 10.1159/000346144. Epub 2013 Mar 21.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Blinding is an integral part of many randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, both blinding and blinding assessment seem to be rarely documented in trial reports.

METHOD

Systematic review of articles on RCTs in schizophrenia and affective disorders research during 2000-2010.

RESULTS

Among 2,467 publications, 61 (2.5%; 95% confidence interval: 1.9-3.1%) reported assessing participant, rater, or clinician blinding: 5/672 reports on schizophrenia (0.7%; 0.3-1.6%) and 33/1,079 (3.1%; 2.1-4.2%) on affective disorders, without significant trends across the decade. Rarely was blinding assessed at the beginning, in most studies assessment was at the end. Proportion of patients' and raters' correct guesses of study arm averaged 54.4 and 62.0% per study, with slightly more correct guesses in treatment arms than in placebo arms. Three fourths of responders correctly guessed that they received the active agent. Blinding assessment was more frequently reported in papers on psychotherapy and brain stimulation than on drug trials (5.1%, 1.7-11.9%, vs. 8.3%, 4.3-14.4%, vs. 2.1%, 1.5-2.8%). Lack of assessment of blinding was associated with: (a) positive findings, (b) full industrial sponsorship, and (c) diagnosis of schizophrenia. There was a moderate association of treatment success and blinding status of both trial participants (r = 0.51, p = 0.002) and raters (r = 0.55, p = 0.067). Many RCT reports did not meet CONSORT standards regarding documentation of persons blinded (60%) or of efforts to match interventions (50%).

CONCLUSIONS

Recent treatment trials in major psychiatric disorders rarely reported on or evaluated blinding. We recommend routine documentation of blinding strategies in reports.

摘要

背景

在许多随机对照试验(RCT)中,盲法是不可或缺的一部分。然而,试验报告中似乎很少记录盲法和盲法评估。

方法

系统检索 2000-2010 年期间精神分裂症和情感障碍研究的 RCT 文章。

结果

在 2467 篇出版物中,有 61 篇(2.5%;95%置信区间:1.9-3.1%)报道了评估参与者、评估者或临床医生的盲法:672 篇精神分裂症报告中有 5 篇(0.7%;0.3-1.6%),1079 篇情感障碍报告中有 33 篇(3.1%;2.1-4.2%),但在整个十年中没有明显的趋势。很少在试验开始时评估盲法,大多数研究在试验结束时评估盲法。每个研究中,患者和评估者正确猜测研究组的比例平均为 54.4%和 62.0%,治疗组的正确猜测略多于安慰剂组。四分之三的应答者正确猜测他们接受了活性药物。在关于心理治疗和脑刺激的论文中,比药物试验更频繁地报告盲法评估(5.1%,1.7-11.9%,vs. 8.3%,4.3-14.4%,vs. 2.1%,1.5-2.8%)。盲法评估的缺乏与以下因素有关:(a)阳性发现,(b)全工业赞助,和(c)精神分裂症的诊断。试验参与者(r = 0.51,p = 0.002)和评估者(r = 0.55,p = 0.067)的治疗效果和盲法状态之间存在中度相关性。许多 RCT 报告没有符合 CONSORT 标准,即没有记录盲法人员(60%)或没有记录匹配干预措施(50%)。

结论

最近在主要精神疾病的治疗试验中,很少有关于或评估盲法的报道。我们建议在报告中常规记录盲法策略。

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

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验