Suppr超能文献

不同资金来源资助的兽医药剂干预随机对照试验的样本量和结局指标数量:一项横断面研究

Sample size and number of outcome measures of veterinary randomised controlled trials of pharmaceutical interventions funded by different sources, a cross-sectional study.

作者信息

Wareham K J, Hyde R M, Grindlay D, Brennan M L, Dean R S

机构信息

Centre for Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington campus, Loughborough, LE12 5RD, UK.

Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, The University of Nottingham, King's Meadow Campus Lenton Lane, Nottingham, NG7 2NR, UK.

出版信息

BMC Vet Res. 2017 Oct 4;13(1):295. doi: 10.1186/s12917-017-1207-0.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are a key component of the veterinary evidence base. Sample sizes and defined outcome measures are crucial components of RCTs. To describe the sample size and number of outcome measures of veterinary RCTs either funded by the pharmaceutical industry or not, published in 2011.

METHODS

A structured search of PubMed identified RCTs examining the efficacy of pharmaceutical interventions. Number of outcome measures, number of animals enrolled per trial, whether a primary outcome was identified, and the presence of a sample size calculation were extracted from the RCTs. The source of funding was identified for each trial and groups compared on the above parameters.

RESULTS

Literature searches returned 972 papers; 86 papers comprising 126 individual trials were analysed. The median number of outcomes per trial was 5.0; there were no significant differences across funding groups (p = 0.133). The median number of animals enrolled per trial was 30.0; this was similar across funding groups (p = 0.302). A primary outcome was identified in 40.5% of trials and was significantly more likely to be stated in trials funded by a pharmaceutical company. A very low percentage of trials reported a sample size calculation (14.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Failure to report primary outcomes, justify sample sizes and the reporting of multiple outcome measures was a common feature in all of the clinical trials examined in this study. It is possible some of these factors may be affected by the source of funding of the studies, but the influence of funding needs to be explored with a larger number of trials. Some veterinary RCTs provide a weak evidence base and targeted strategies are required to improve the quality of veterinary RCTs to ensure there is reliable evidence on which to base clinical decisions.

摘要

背景

随机对照试验(RCTs)是兽医证据基础的关键组成部分。样本量和明确的结局指标是随机对照试验的关键要素。旨在描述2011年发表的由制药行业资助或未资助的兽医随机对照试验的样本量和结局指标数量。

方法

通过对PubMed进行结构化检索,确定了检验药物干预疗效的随机对照试验。从随机对照试验中提取结局指标数量、每项试验纳入的动物数量、是否确定了主要结局以及是否进行了样本量计算。确定了每项试验的资金来源,并根据上述参数对各组进行比较。

结果

文献检索共返回972篇论文;对86篇论文(包含126项独立试验)进行了分析。每项试验的结局指标中位数为5.0;各资助组之间无显著差异(p = 0.133)。每项试验纳入的动物数量中位数为30.0;各资助组情况相似(p = 0.302)。40.5%的试验确定了主要结局,且在制药公司资助的试验中更有可能明确指出。报告样本量计算的试验比例非常低(14.3%)。

结论

未报告主要结局、未说明样本量合理性以及报告多个结局指标是本研究中所有临床试验的共同特征。这些因素中的一些可能受研究资金来源的影响,但需要通过更多试验来探究资金的影响。一些兽医随机对照试验提供的证据基础薄弱,需要有针对性的策略来提高兽医随机对照试验的质量,以确保有可靠的证据支持临床决策。

相似文献

2
Sponsorship bias and quality of randomised controlled trials in veterinary medicine.
BMC Vet Res. 2017 Aug 14;13(1):234. doi: 10.1186/s12917-017-1146-9.
7
Evaluation of selective outcome reporting and trial registration practices among addiction clinical trials.
Addiction. 2020 Jun;115(6):1172-1179. doi: 10.1111/add.14902. Epub 2020 Jan 16.
8
Funding source and the quality of reports of chronic wounds trials: 2004 to 2011.
Trials. 2014 Jan 14;15:19. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-19.
9
Type II error and statistical power in reports of small animal clinical trials.
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2014 May 1;244(9):1075-80. doi: 10.2460/javma.244.9.1075.

引用本文的文献

1
The Vertebrate Breed Ontology: Toward Effective Breed Data Standardization.
J Vet Intern Med. 2025 Jul-Aug;39(4):e70133. doi: 10.1111/jvim.70133.
3
The standards of reporting trials in pets (PetSORT): Explanation and elaboration.
Front Vet Sci. 2023 Mar 30;10:1137781. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1137781. eCollection 2023.
4
Critically Appraised Topics (CATs) in Veterinary Medicine: Applying Evidence in Clinical Practice.
Front Vet Sci. 2020 Jun 26;7:314. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00314. eCollection 2020.

本文引用的文献

1
Sponsorship bias and quality of randomised controlled trials in veterinary medicine.
BMC Vet Res. 2017 Aug 14;13(1):234. doi: 10.1186/s12917-017-1146-9.
2
Association between funding sources and the scope and outcomes of cardiovascular clinical trials: A systematic review.
Int J Cardiol. 2017 Mar 1;230:301-303. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.12.119. Epub 2016 Dec 22.
4
Veterinary All Trials Initiative.
Vet Rec. 2015 Aug 1;177(5):131-2. doi: 10.1136/vr.h4107.
5
Reporting of sample size calculations in analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review.
J Pain. 2015 Mar;16(3):199-206.e1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2014.11.010. Epub 2014 Dec 4.
6
Type II error and statistical power in reports of small animal clinical trials.
J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2014 May 1;244(9):1075-80. doi: 10.2460/javma.244.9.1075.
7
Funding source and the quality of reports of chronic wounds trials: 2004 to 2011.
Trials. 2014 Jan 14;15:19. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-19.
9
CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.
Int J Surg. 2012;10(1):28-55. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.10.001. Epub 2011 Oct 12.

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