Suppr超能文献

评估预防早产干预措施的随机试验和系统评价中主要结局的选择:一项系统评价。

Choice of primary outcomes in randomised trials and systematic reviews evaluating interventions for preterm birth prevention: a systematic review.

作者信息

Meher S, Alfirevic Z

机构信息

Department of Women and Children's Health, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

出版信息

BJOG. 2014 Sep;121(10):1188-94; discussion 1195-6. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12593. Epub 2014 Feb 27.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The inappropriate and inconsistent selection of primary outcomes (POs) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) can make evidence difficult to interpret, limiting its usefulness to inform clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the choice and consistency of POs in RCTs and SRs of preventative interventions for preterm birth.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Specialised Register of trials and a full list of published reviews and protocols.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Full reports of RCTs for preterm birth prevention published after CONSORT (January 1997-January 2011), and Cochrane Reviews and protocols relevant to preterm birth prevention, for the same period.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For RCTs, the PO was the outcome used for sample size calculation. For SRs, we included all outcomes listed as 'primary'. Two review authors selected studies and double-checked the data for accuracy.

RESULTS

Seventy-two different POs were reported by 103 RCTs. The three most common POs were based on length of gestation, with preterm birth before 37 weeks of gestation being the most common (18/103, 18%). Few RCTs chose perinatal morbidity (4/103) or mortality (1/103), or their composites (5/103), as POs. In 33 Cochrane Reviews, 29 different POs were reported. The three most common POs were based on death or morbidity in the baby, with death of the baby being the most common (22/33, 67%). POs were variably defined.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of consistency in the choice and definitions of POs in clinical research related to preterm birth prevention. SRs are more likely to report morbidity and mortality as POs, whereas RCTs tend to use length of gestation. Researchers are urged to review the outcomes reported in RCTs and SRs in their respective areas of interest to highlight discrepancies and facilitate the development of core outcome sets.

摘要

背景

随机对照试验(RCTs)和系统评价(SRs)中主要结局(POs)选择不当且不一致,会使证据难以解读,限制其对临床实践的指导作用。

目的

系统评价RCTs和SRs中预防早产干预措施的POs选择及一致性。

检索策略

Cochrane妊娠与分娩组专业试验注册库以及已发表综述和方案的完整列表。

选择标准

1997年1月至2011年1月CONSORT声明发布后发表的预防早产RCTs的完整报告,以及同期与预防早产相关的Cochrane综述和方案。

数据收集与分析

对于RCTs,PO是用于计算样本量的结局。对于SRs,我们纳入列为“主要”的所有结局。两位综述作者选择研究并复查数据准确性。

结果

103项RCTs报告了72种不同的POs。最常见的三种POs基于孕周,其中妊娠37周前早产最为常见(18/103,18%)。很少有RCTs选择围产期发病率(4/103)或死亡率(1/103),或其综合指标(5/103)作为POs。在33篇Cochrane综述中,报告了29种不同的POs。最常见的三种POs基于婴儿的死亡或发病情况,其中婴儿死亡最为常见(22/33,67%)。POs的定义各不相同。

结论

与预防早产相关的临床研究中,POs的选择和定义缺乏一致性。SRs更倾向于将发病率和死亡率报告为POs,而RCTs倾向于使用孕周。敦促研究人员复查各自感兴趣领域的RCTs和SRs中报告的结局,以突出差异并促进核心结局集的制定。

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