Suppr超能文献

心房颤动和静脉血栓栓塞研究中报告的维生素K拮抗剂控制措施:一项系统评价。

Measures of vitamin K antagonist control reported in atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism studies: a systematic review.

作者信息

Mearns Elizabeth S, Hawthorne Jessica, Song Ju-Sung, Coleman Craig I

机构信息

Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy, Storrs, Connecticut, USA The University of Connecticut/Hartford Hospital Evidence-Based Practice Center, Hartford, Connecticut, USA.

Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy, Storrs, Connecticut, USA.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2014 Jun 20;4(6):e005379. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005379.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To aid trialists, systematic reviewers and others, we evaluated the degree of standardisation of control measure reporting that has occurred in atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) studies since 2000; and attempted to determine whether the prior recommendation of reporting ≥2 measures per study has been employed.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched bibliographic databases (2000 to June 2013) to identify AF and VTE studies evaluating dose-adjusted vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and reporting ≥1 control measure. The types of measures reported, proportion of studies reporting ≥2 measures and mean (±SD) number of measures per study were determined for all studies and compared between subgroups.

DATA EXTRACTION

Through the use of a standardised data extraction tool, we independently extracted all data, with disagreements resolved by a separate investigator.

RESULTS

148 studies were included, 57% of which reported ≥2 control measures (mean/study=2.13±1.36). The proportion of time spent in the target international normalised ratio range (TTR) was most commonly reported (79%), and was frequently accompanied by time above/below range (52%). AF studies more frequently reported ≥2 control measures compared with VTE studies (63% vs 37%; p=0.004), and reported a greater number of measures per study (mean=2.36 vs 1.53; p<0.001). Observational studies were more likely to provide ≥2 measures compared with randomised trials (76% vs 33%; p<0.001) and report a greater number of measures (mean=2.58 vs 1.63; p<0.001). More recent studies (2004-2013) reported ≥2 measures more often than older (2000-2003) studies (59% vs 35%; p=0.05) and reported more measures per study (mean=2.23 vs 1.48; p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

While TTR was often utilised, studies reported ≥2 measures of VKA control only about half of the time and lacked consistency in the types of measures reported. A trend towards studies reporting greater numbers of VKA control measures over time was observed over our review time horizon, particularly, with AF and observational studies.

摘要

目的

为帮助试验者、系统评价者及其他人员,我们评估了自2000年以来心房颤动(AF)和静脉血栓栓塞症(VTE)研究中对照措施报告的标准化程度;并试图确定每项研究报告≥2项措施的先前建议是否得到采用。

设计

系统评价。

检索策略

我们检索了文献数据库(2000年至2013年6月),以识别评估剂量调整维生素K拮抗剂(VKA)并报告≥1项对照措施的AF和VTE研究。确定所有研究报告的措施类型、报告≥2项措施的研究比例以及每项研究的平均(±标准差)措施数量,并在亚组之间进行比较。

数据提取

通过使用标准化数据提取工具,我们独立提取所有数据,分歧由另一位研究者解决。

结果

纳入148项研究,其中57%报告了≥2项对照措施(每项研究平均=2.13±1.36)。最常报告的是目标国际标准化比值范围(TTR)内花费的时间比例(79%),并且经常伴有高于/低于范围的时间(52%)。与VTE研究相比,AF研究更频繁地报告≥2项对照措施(63%对37%;p=0.004),并且每项研究报告的措施数量更多(平均=2.36对1.53;p<0.001)。与随机试验相比,观察性研究更有可能提供≥2项措施(76%对33%;p<0.001),并且报告的措施数量更多(平均=2.58对1.63;p<0.001)。近期研究(2004 - 2013年)比早期研究(2000 - 2003年)更频繁地报告≥2项措施(59%对35%;p=0.05),并且每项研究报告的措施更多(平均=2.23对1.48;p=0.02)。

结论

虽然经常使用TTR,但研究仅约一半时间报告≥2项VKA对照措施,并且报告的措施类型缺乏一致性。在我们的审查时间范围内,观察到随着时间推移研究报告更多VKA对照措施的趋势,特别是在AF和观察性研究中。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fcd5/4067815/4f9135892ed6/bmjopen2014005379f01.jpg

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