Schriger David L, Cooper Richelle J, Lopez-O'Sullivan Ana, Wystrach Carter, Altman Douglas G
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, 924 Westwood Blvd, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, USA.
Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
Trials. 2015 Feb 22;16:57. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0584-6.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often have more than one primary outcome and frequently have secondary and harm outcomes. Comparison of outcomes between study arms is the primary focus of RCTs, but there are times when the relation between outcomes is important, such as determining whether an intermediate outcome and a clinical outcome have a strong association. We sought to determine how often reports of RCTs depict the relations among outcomes at the individual patient level and, for those studies that use composite outcomes, how often the relations between component elements are depicted.
We selected 20 general, specialty and subspecialty medical journals with high impact factors that publish original clinical research. We identified every RCT in the 2011 and 2012 issues and randomly selected 10 articles per journal. For each article we recorded the number of outcomes, the number of composite outcomes and how often the relations between outcomes or elements of composite outcomes were portrayed.
All but 16 of the 200 RCTs had more than one outcome. Thus, outcomes could have been related in 92% of studies, but such relations were only reported in 2 (1%). A total of 33 (17%) investigations measured a composite outcome, 32 of which showed data for each component. None, however, showed cross-tabulation of the components.
Readers are rarely shown the relation between outcomes. Mandatory posting of datasets or requirements for detailed appendices would allow readers to see these cross-tabulations, helping future investigators know which outcomes are redundant, which provide unique information and which are most responsive to changes in the independent variables. While not every relationship between outcomes requires depiction, at present such information is seldom portrayed.
随机对照试验(RCT)通常有不止一个主要结局,并且经常有次要结局和不良结局。研究组之间结局的比较是RCT的主要关注点,但有时结局之间的关系很重要,例如确定一个中间结局和一个临床结局是否有很强的关联。我们试图确定RCT报告在个体患者层面描述结局之间关系的频率,以及对于那些使用复合结局的研究,描述组成要素之间关系的频率。
我们选择了20种发表原创临床研究的、具有高影响因子的综合、专科和亚专科医学期刊。我们确定了2011年和2012年各期的每一项RCT,并从每种期刊中随机选取10篇文章。对于每篇文章,我们记录了结局的数量、复合结局的数量以及结局或复合结局要素之间的关系被描述的频率。
200项RCT中除16项外均有不止一个结局。因此,在92%的研究中结局可能存在关联,但只有2项(1%)报告了这种关系。共有33项(17%)研究测量了复合结局,其中32项给出了每个组成部分的数据。然而,没有一项展示了各组成部分的交叉表。
读者很少能看到结局之间的关系。强制发布数据集或要求提供详细附录将使读者能够看到这些交叉表,有助于未来的研究者了解哪些结局是多余的,哪些提供了独特的信息,以及哪些对自变量的变化最敏感。虽然并非每个结局之间的关系都需要描述,但目前此类信息很少被呈现。