Mearns Elizabeth S, Hawthorne Jessica, Song Ju-Sung, Coleman Craig I
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.
BMJ Open. 2014 Jun 20;4(6):e005379. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005379.
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.
Systematic review.
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.
Through the use of a standardised data extraction tool, we independently extracted all data, with disagreements resolved by a separate investigator.
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).
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.
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。
系统评价。
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。
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。
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)。
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。