• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Cluster randomised trials of prescribing policy: an ethical approach to generating drug safety evidence? A discussion of the ethical application of a new research method.群组随机对照试验在处方政策中的应用:一种生成药物安全性证据的伦理方法?对一种新研究方法的伦理应用的讨论。
Trials. 2020 Jun 5;21(1):477. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04357-4.
2
Inadequacy of ethical conduct and reporting of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials: Results from a systematic review.阶梯楔形整群随机试验的伦理行为及报告存在不足:一项系统评价的结果
Clin Trials. 2017 Aug;14(4):333-341. doi: 10.1177/1740774517703057. Epub 2017 Apr 8.
3
Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE): protocol of a cluster randomised controlled equivalence trial of prescribing policy to compare the effectiveness of thiazide-type diuretics in hypertension.在常规治疗中评估利尿剂(EVIDENCE):一项比较噻嗪类利尿剂在高血压治疗中有效性的群组随机对照等效性试验方案,该试验旨在比较处方政策。
Trials. 2021 Nov 17;22(1):814. doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05782-9.
4
Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE): a feasibility report of a pilot cluster randomised trial of prescribing policy in primary care to compare the effectiveness of thiazide-type diuretics in hypertension.正常护理中利尿剂评估(EVIDENCE):一项初级保健处方政策试点整群随机试验的可行性报告,以比较噻嗪类利尿剂在高血压治疗中的有效性。
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2022 Mar 11;8(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s40814-022-01016-0.
5
Cluster over individual randomization: are study design choices appropriately justified? Review of a random sample of trials.群组随机优于个体随机:研究设计选择是否得到了适当的证明?对随机试验样本的回顾。
Clin Trials. 2020 Jun;17(3):253-263. doi: 10.1177/1740774519896799. Epub 2020 May 5.
6
Informed consent in cluster randomised trials: new and common ethical challenges.在整群随机临床试验中知情同意:新的和共同的伦理挑战。
J Med Ethics. 2018 Feb;44(2):114-120. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2017-104249. Epub 2017 Aug 5.
7
Survey of consent practices in cluster randomized trials: improvements are needed in ethical conduct and reporting.整群随机试验中同意做法的调查:伦理行为和报告方面需要改进。
Clin Trials. 2014 Feb;11(1):60-9. doi: 10.1177/1740774513513658. Epub 2013 Dec 17.
8
Non-medical prescribing versus medical prescribing for acute and chronic disease management in primary and secondary care.基层医疗和二级医疗中急性和慢性疾病管理的非医学处方与医学处方对比
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 22;11(11):CD011227. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011227.pub2.
9
Ethical issues raised by cluster randomised trials conducted in low-resource settings: identifying gaps in the through an analysis of the PURE Malawi trial.在资源匮乏环境下开展的整群随机试验引发的伦理问题:通过对 PURE 马拉维试验的分析来确定这些问题的差距。
J Med Ethics. 2019 Jun;45(6):388-393. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105374. Epub 2019 Jun 12.
10
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.

引用本文的文献

1
Gaps in the Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials: a citation analysis reveals a need for updated ethics guidelines.《渥太华集群随机试验伦理设计与实施声明》中的差距:一项引文分析表明需要更新伦理准则。
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2025 Jun 18;10(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s41073-025-00166-y.
2
Informed consent and risk communication challenges in antimicrobial clinical trials: a scoping review.知情同意和风险沟通在抗菌药物临床试验中的挑战:范围综述。
BMJ Open. 2024 Nov 24;14(11):e082096. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082096.
3
Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE): a feasibility report of a pilot cluster randomised trial of prescribing policy in primary care to compare the effectiveness of thiazide-type diuretics in hypertension.正常护理中利尿剂评估(EVIDENCE):一项初级保健处方政策试点整群随机试验的可行性报告,以比较噻嗪类利尿剂在高血压治疗中的有效性。
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2022 Mar 11;8(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s40814-022-01016-0.

本文引用的文献

1
Generating comparative evidence on new drugs and devices after approval.批准后对新药和新器械生成对比证据。
Lancet. 2020 Mar 21;395(10228):998-1010. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)33177-0.
2
Generating comparative evidence on new drugs and devices before approval.在批准新药和新器械之前生成比较证据。
Lancet. 2020 Mar 21;395(10228):986-997. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)33178-2.
3
Routinely collected data for randomized trials: promises, barriers, and implications.随机试验的常规收集数据:前景、障碍及影响
Trials. 2018 Jan 11;19(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2394-5.
4
Per-Protocol Analyses of Pragmatic Trials.实用性试验的符合方案分析
N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377(14):1391-1398. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsm1605385.
5
Informed consent in cluster randomised trials: new and common ethical challenges.在整群随机临床试验中知情同意:新的和共同的伦理挑战。
J Med Ethics. 2018 Feb;44(2):114-120. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2017-104249. Epub 2017 Aug 5.
6
Do doctors have a duty to take part in pragmatic randomised trials?医生有义务参与实用性随机试验吗?
BMJ. 2017 Jun 14;357:j2817. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j2817.
7
Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 4. Informed consent.系列:实用试验与真实世界证据:论文4. 知情同意
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Sep;89:181-187. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.03.019. Epub 2017 May 11.
8
A tutorial on the use of instrumental variables in pharmacoepidemiology.药物流行病学中工具变量使用教程。
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017 Apr;26(4):357-367. doi: 10.1002/pds.4158. Epub 2017 Feb 27.
9
Clinical Trials Without Consent?未经同意的临床试验?
Perspect Biol Med. 2016;59(1):132-46. doi: 10.1353/pbm.2016.0023.
10
Squeezing observational data for better causal inference: Methods and examples for prevention research.挖掘观测数据以进行更好的因果推断:预防研究的方法与实例
Int J Psychol. 2017 Apr;52(2):96-105. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12275. Epub 2016 Apr 20.

群组随机对照试验在处方政策中的应用:一种生成药物安全性证据的伦理方法?对一种新研究方法的伦理应用的讨论。

Cluster randomised trials of prescribing policy: an ethical approach to generating drug safety evidence? A discussion of the ethical application of a new research method.

机构信息

MEMO Research, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.

Health and Clinical Services, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.

出版信息

Trials. 2020 Jun 5;21(1):477. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04357-4.

DOI:10.1186/s13063-020-04357-4
PMID:32498697
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7273660/
Abstract

For most chronic medical conditions, multiple medications are available and prescribers often have limited evidence about which therapy is likely to be the most effective and safe for an individual patient. As many patients are exposed every day to medicines that may be less effective than available alternatives, this is of public health importance. Cluster randomised trials of prescribing policy offer an opportunity to rapidly obtain evidence of comparative effectiveness and safety. These trials can pose a low risk to patients and cause minimal disruption to usual care. Despite the potential scientific value of this approach, there remain valid concerns about consent, medication switching and the use of routinely collected data in research. We discuss these concerns with reference to an ongoing pilot study (Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE) - a cluster randomised evaluation of hypertension prescribing policy, ISRCTN 46635087, registered 11 August 2017).

摘要

对于大多数慢性疾病,有多种药物可供选择,而医生通常对于哪种治疗方法对个体患者最有效和最安全的证据有限。由于许多患者每天都在接触可能不如现有替代品有效的药物,因此这对公共卫生具有重要意义。针对处方政策的聚类随机试验为快速获得比较有效性和安全性证据提供了机会。这些试验对患者的风险较低,对常规护理的干扰最小。尽管这种方法具有潜在的科学价值,但对于同意、药物转换和常规收集数据在研究中的使用,仍存在合理的担忧。我们参考正在进行的试点研究(Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE) - a cluster randomised evaluation of hypertension prescribing policy, ISRCTN 46635087, registered 11 August 2017)来讨论这些担忧。