Kennes Lieven Nils
Department of Economics and Business Administration, University of Applied Sciences Stralsund, Stralsund, Germany.
Adv Ther. 2017 Oct;34(10):2199-2209. doi: 10.1007/s12325-017-0609-5. Epub 2017 Sep 12.
Randomized controlled clinical trials are regarded as the gold standard for comparing different clinical interventions, but generally their conduct is operationally cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive. Studies and investigations based on clinical routine data on the contrary utilize existing data acquired under real-life conditions and are increasingly popular among practitioners. In this paper, methodological aspects of studies based on clinical routine data are discussed. Important limitations and considerations as well as unique strengths of these types of studies are indicated and exemplarily demonstrated in a recent real-case study based on clinical routine data. In addition two simulation studies reveal the impact of bias in studies based on clinical routine data on the type I error rate and false decision rate in favor of the inferior intervention. It is concluded that correctly analyzing clinical routine data yields a valuable addition to clinical research; however, as a result of a lack of statistical foundation, internal validity, and comparability, generalizing results and inferring properties derived from clinical routine data to all patients of interest has to be considered with extreme caution.
Grünenthal GmbH.
随机对照临床试验被视为比较不同临床干预措施的金标准,但一般来说,其实施在操作上繁琐、耗时且昂贵。相反,基于临床常规数据的研究和调查利用在现实生活条件下获取的现有数据,并且在从业者中越来越受欢迎。本文讨论了基于临床常规数据的研究的方法学方面。指出了这些类型研究的重要局限性和注意事项以及独特优势,并在最近一项基于临床常规数据的实际案例研究中进行了示例性展示。此外,两项模拟研究揭示了基于临床常规数据的研究中的偏倚对支持较差干预措施的I型错误率和错误决策率的影响。得出的结论是,正确分析临床常规数据会为临床研究带来有价值的补充;然而,由于缺乏统计基础、内部有效性和可比性,必须极其谨慎地考虑将基于临床常规数据得出的结果推广到所有感兴趣的患者并推断其特性。
格伦泰纳有限公司。