1Center for Global Health and Diseases, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
2Schistosomiasis Consortium for Operational Research and Evaluation, Center for Tropical and Emerging Global Diseases, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2020 Jul;103(1_Suppl):36-41. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.19-0805.
In 2010, the Schistosomiasis Consortium for Operational Research and Evaluation (SCORE) began the design of randomized controlled trials to compare different strategies for praziquantel mass drug administration, whether for gaining or sustaining control of schistosomiasis or for approaching local elimination of transmission. The goal of this operational research was to expand the evidence base for policy-making for regional and national control of schistosomiasis in sub-Saharan Africa. Over the 10-year period of its research programs, as SCORE operational research projects were implemented, their scope and scale posed important challenges in terms of research performance and the final interpretation of their results. The SCORE projects yielded valuable data on program-level effectiveness and strengths and weaknesses in performance, but in most of the trials, a greater-than-expected variation in community-level responses to assigned schedules of mass drug administration meant that identification of a dominant control strategy was not possible. This article critically reviews the impact of SCORE's cluster randomized study design on performance and interpretation of large-scale operational research such as ours.
2010 年,血吸虫病合作研究与评价组织(SCORE)开始设计随机对照试验,以比较不同的吡喹酮大规模药物治疗策略,无论是为了获得或维持血吸虫病控制,还是为了接近局部消除传播。这项业务研究的目标是扩大撒哈拉以南非洲地区和国家血吸虫病控制政策制定的证据基础。在其研究项目的 10 年期间,随着 SCORE 业务研究项目的实施,其范围和规模在研究绩效和最终结果解释方面带来了重要挑战。SCORE 项目提供了关于方案层面有效性以及绩效的优势和劣势的宝贵数据,但在大多数试验中,对分配的大规模药物治疗时间表的社区层面反应的预期差异较大,这意味着无法确定主导控制策略。本文批判性地审查了 SCORE 的集群随机研究设计对我们这样的大规模业务研究的绩效和解释的影响。