Suppr超能文献

获取欧洲药品管理局的临床研究报告是否会减少报告偏倚?一项关于促红细胞生成素在癌症患者中作用的随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。

Does access to clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency reduce reporting biases? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the effect of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in cancer patients.

作者信息

Rohner Eliane, Grabik Michael, Tonia Thomy, Jüni Peter, Pétavy Frank, Pignatti Francesco, Bohlius Julia

机构信息

Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

University of Toronto, Applied Health Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2017 Dec 11;12(12):e0189309. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189309. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

Since 2010, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has provided access to clinical study reports (CSRs). We requested CSRs for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in cancer patients from EMA and identified RCT publications with literature searches. We assessed CSR availability and completeness, the impact of unreported and unpublished data obtained from CSRs on the effects of ESAs on quality of life (QoL) of cancer patients, and discrepancies between data reported in the public domain and in CSRs. We used random-effects meta-analyses to evaluate the effect of ESAs on QoL measured with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An), FACT-Fatigue (FACT-F) and FACT-Anemia Total (FACT-An Total) stratified by data source and the impact of discrepancies on QoL, mortality, adverse events, and clinical effectiveness outcomes. We identified 94 eligible RCTs; CSRs or other study documentation were available for 17 (18%) RCTs at EMA. Median report length was 1,825 pages (range 72-14,569). Of 180 outcomes of interest reported in the EMA documentation, 127 (71%) were publicly available. For 80 of those (63%) we noted discrepancies, but these had little impact on the pooled effect estimates. Of 27 QoL outcomes reported in the CSRs, 17 (63%) were unpublished. Including six unpublished comparisons (pooled mean difference [MD] 0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.93, 2.33) reduced the pooled effect of ESAs for FACT-An from MD 5.51 (95% CI 4.20, 6.82) in published data to MD 3.21 (95% CI 1.38, 5.03), which is below a clinically important difference (defined as MD ≥4). Effects were similar for FACT-F and FACT-An Total. Access to CSRs from EMA reduced reporting biases for QoL outcomes. However, EMA received documentation for a fraction of all RCTs on effects of ESAs in cancer patients. Additional efforts by other agencies and institutions are needed to make CSRs universally available for all RCTs.

摘要

自2010年以来,欧洲药品管理局(EMA)开始提供临床研究报告(CSR)。我们向EMA索取了癌症患者促红细胞生成素(ESA)随机对照试验(RCT)的CSR,并通过文献检索确定了RCT出版物。我们评估了CSR的可获取性和完整性、从CSR中获得的未报告和未发表数据对ESA对癌症患者生活质量(QoL)影响的作用,以及公共领域报告的数据与CSR中数据之间的差异。我们使用随机效应荟萃分析来评估ESA对以癌症治疗贫血功能评估(FACT - An)、FACT - 疲劳(FACT - F)和FACT - 贫血总分(FACT - An Total)衡量的QoL的影响,并按数据源进行分层,以及差异对QoL、死亡率、不良事件和临床有效性结果的影响。我们确定了94项符合条件的RCT;EMA有17项(18%)RCT可获取CSR或其他研究文件。报告的中位数长度为1825页(范围72 - 14569页)。在EMA文件中报告的180项感兴趣的结果中,127项(71%)是公开可用的。其中80项(63%)我们注意到存在差异,但这些差异对汇总效应估计影响不大。在CSR中报告的27项QoL结果中,17项(63%)未发表。纳入六项未发表的比较(合并平均差[MD] 0.20;95%置信区间[CI] -1.93,2.33)后,ESA对FACT - An的合并效应从已发表数据中的MD 5.51(95% CI 4.20,6.82)降至MD 3.21(95% CI 1.38,5.03),低于临床重要差异(定义为MD≥4)。FACT - F和FACT - An Total的效应相似。获取EMA的CSR减少了QoL结果的报告偏倚。然而,EMA收到的关于ESA对癌症患者影响的所有RCT文件仅占一部分。其他机构和组织需要做出更多努力,以使所有RCT的CSR都能普遍获取。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e7fe/5724886/fe92c06c8d99/pone.0189309.g001.jpg

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