Suppr超能文献

在脓毒症领域,使用倾向评分分析的观察性研究与随机对照试验的结果一致吗?

Do the observational studies using propensity score analysis agree with randomized controlled trials in the area of sepsis?

作者信息

Zhang Zhongheng, Ni Hongying, Xu Xiao

机构信息

Department of Critical Care Medicine, Jinhua Municipal Central Hospital, Jinhua Hospital of Zhejiang University.

出版信息

J Crit Care. 2014 Oct;29(5):886.e9-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.05.023. Epub 2014 Jun 4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Sepsis is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity in the intensive care unit, and many studies have been conducted aiming to improve its outcome. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies using propensity score (PS) method are commonly used for this purpose. However, the agreement between these two major methodological designs has never been investigated in this specific area. The present study aimed to compare the effect sizes between RCTs and PS-based studies.

METHODS

Electronic databases including Pubmed, Scopus, and EBSCO were searched to obtain PS-based studies in the area of sepsis. The studies were matched to RCTs or systematic reviews and meta-analysis in terms of population, intervention, control, and outcome. When there were multiple PS-based studies or RCTs in one area, the effect sizes were pooled by using random-effects model and inverse variance method. The comparisons were performed by using differences in the effect size.

RESULTS

A total of 8 topics were identified fulfilling the criterion that at least 1 pair of RCT and PS-based study could be matched. The interventions included activated protein C, low-dose steroid, antithrombin III, combination antibiotic therapy, fish oil supplementation, statin, etomidate for intubation, and recombinant human soluble thrombomodulin. The effect sizes were statistically different between RCTs and PS-based studies in most circumstances (6/8). The pooled mean difference in effect sizes was -0.16 (95% confidence interval, -0.33 to 0.01), indicating a trend towards larger treatment effect in PS studies than in RCTs. The result remains unaltered by restricting to RCTs and PS studies with the largest sample sizes.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that PS studies tend to report larger treatment effect than RCTs in the field of sepsis, indicating the difference between efficacy trials and effectiveness studies.

摘要

背景与目的

脓毒症是重症监护病房死亡和发病的主要原因,并且已经开展了许多旨在改善其预后的研究。随机对照试验(RCT)和使用倾向评分(PS)方法的观察性研究通常用于此目的。然而,这两种主要方法设计之间的一致性在这个特定领域从未被研究过。本研究旨在比较RCT和基于PS的研究之间的效应大小。

方法

检索包括Pubmed、Scopus和EBSCO在内的电子数据库,以获取脓毒症领域基于PS的研究。这些研究在人群、干预、对照和结局方面与RCT或系统评价及荟萃分析进行匹配。当一个领域有多个基于PS的研究或RCT时,使用随机效应模型和逆方差法合并效应大小。通过效应大小的差异进行比较。

结果

共确定了8个主题符合至少一对RCT和基于PS的研究可以匹配的标准。干预措施包括活化蛋白C、低剂量类固醇、抗凝血酶III、联合抗生素治疗、补充鱼油、他汀类药物、用于插管的依托咪酯和重组人可溶性血栓调节蛋白。在大多数情况下(6/8),RCT和基于PS的研究之间的效应大小在统计学上存在差异。效应大小的合并平均差异为-0.16(95%置信区间,-0.33至0.01),表明基于PS的研究比RCT有更大治疗效果的趋势。限制为样本量最大的RCT和基于PS的研究时,结果不变。

结论

我们的研究表明,在脓毒症领域,基于PS的研究往往比RCT报告更大的治疗效果,这表明了疗效试验和效果研究之间的差异。

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