• 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

九项随机卒中试验中结局裁定的成本效益分析。

Cost-benefit of outcome adjudication in nine randomised stroke trials.

机构信息

Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK.

出版信息

Clin Trials. 2020 Oct;17(5):576-580. doi: 10.1177/1740774520939231. Epub 2020 Jul 10.

DOI:10.1177/1740774520939231
PMID:32650688
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Central adjudication of outcomes is common for randomised trials and should control for differential misclassification. However, few studies have estimated the cost of the adjudication process.

METHODS

We estimated the cost of adjudicating the primary outcome in nine randomised stroke trials (25,436 participants). The costs included adjudicators' time, direct payments to adjudicators, and co-ordinating centre costs (e.g. uploading cranial scans and general set-up costs). The number of events corrected after adjudication was our measure of benefit. We calculated cost per corrected event for each trial and in total.

RESULTS

The primary outcome in all nine trials was either stroke or a composite that included stroke. In total, the adjudication process associated with this primary outcome cost in excess of £100,000 for a third of the trials (3/9). Mean cost per event corrected by adjudication was £2295.10 (SD: £1482.42).

CONCLUSIONS

Central adjudication is a time-consuming and potentially costly process. These costs need to be considered when designing a trial and should be evaluated alongside the potential benefits adjudication brings to determine whether they outweigh this expense.

摘要

背景

结局的中心裁决在随机试验中很常见,应该控制差异分类错误。然而,很少有研究估计裁决过程的成本。

方法

我们估计了 9 项随机卒中试验(25436 名参与者)中主要结局裁决的成本。这些成本包括裁决者的时间、对裁决者的直接支付以及协调中心的费用(例如,上传头颅扫描和一般设置成本)。裁决后纠正的事件数量是我们衡量效益的指标。我们计算了每个试验和总计的每个纠正事件的成本。

结果

这 9 项试验的主要结局均为卒中或包括卒中的复合结局。总的来说,这一主要结局的裁决过程在三分之一(3/9)的试验中花费超过 10 万英镑。经裁决纠正的每个事件的平均成本为 2295.10 英镑(SD:1482.42 英镑)。

结论

中心裁决是一个耗时且潜在昂贵的过程。在设计试验时需要考虑这些成本,并应结合裁决带来的潜在益处进行评估,以确定它们是否超过了这一费用。

相似文献

1
Cost-benefit of outcome adjudication in nine randomised stroke trials.九项随机卒中试验中结局裁定的成本效益分析。
Clin Trials. 2020 Oct;17(5):576-580. doi: 10.1177/1740774520939231. Epub 2020 Jul 10.
2
Outcome Assessment by Central Adjudicators Versus Site Investigators in Stroke Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.卒中试验中由中心裁决者与研究点研究者进行的结果评估:一项系统评价与Meta分析
Stroke. 2019 Aug;50(8):2187-2196. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.025019. Epub 2019 Jun 10.
3
Outcome assessment by central adjudicators in randomised stroke trials: Simulation of differential and non-differential misclassification.随机中风试验中由中央裁决者进行的结果评估:差异和非差异错误分类的模拟
Eur Stroke J. 2020 Jun;5(2):174-183. doi: 10.1177/2396987320910047. Epub 2020 Feb 26.
4
Should we adjudicate outcomes in stroke trials? A systematic review.我们是否应该对中风试验的结果进行评判?一项系统评价。
Int J Stroke. 2023 Feb;18(2):154-162. doi: 10.1177/17474930221094682. Epub 2022 May 10.
5
A comparison of approaches for adjudicating outcomes in clinical trials.临床试验中判定结果方法的比较。
Trials. 2017 Jun 8;18(1):266. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-1995-3.
6
Evaluating the benefit of event adjudication of cardiovascular outcomes in large simple RCTs.评估大型简单随机对照试验中心血管结局事件判定的益处。
Clin Trials. 2009 Jun;6(3):239-51. doi: 10.1177/1740774509105223.
7
Estimated treatment effect of ticagrelor versus aspirin by investigator-assessed events compared with judgement by an independent event adjudication committee in the SOCRATES trial.SOCRATES 试验中研究者评估事件与独立事件评估委员会判断相比替格瑞洛与阿司匹林的估计治疗效果。
Int J Stroke. 2019 Dec;14(9):908-914. doi: 10.1177/1747493019851282. Epub 2019 May 15.
8
Outcome assessment for clinical trials: how many adjudicators do we need? Canadian Lung Oncology Group.临床试验的结果评估:我们需要多少名裁决者?加拿大肺癌肿瘤学组
Control Clin Trials. 1997 Feb;18(1):27-42. doi: 10.1016/s0197-2456(96)00131-6.
9
Central masked adjudication of stroke diagnosis at trial entry offered no advantage over diagnosis by local clinicians: Secondary analysis and simulation.在试验入组时对中风诊断进行中心屏蔽判定并不比当地临床医生的诊断更具优势:二次分析与模拟。
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2018 Nov 10;12:176-181. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2018.11.002. eCollection 2018 Dec.
10
Clinical trial metadata: defining and extracting metadata on the design, conduct, results and costs of 125 randomised clinical trials funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.临床试验元数据:定义并提取由英国国家卫生研究院卫生技术评估项目资助的125项随机临床试验在设计、实施、结果和成本方面的元数据。
Health Technol Assess. 2015 Feb;19(11):1-138. doi: 10.3310/hta19110.

引用本文的文献

1
Impact of Central Event Adjudication on the PLATO Trial Results.中心事件裁决对PLATO试验结果的影响。
Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2025 Apr 27;26(4):36733. doi: 10.31083/RCM36733. eCollection 2025 Apr.
2
Centrally adjudicated vs. investigator-reported outcomes in randomized heart failure trials.随机心力衰竭试验中由中心判定的结局与研究者报告的结局对比
Eur Heart J. 2024 Dec 16;45(47):5087-5099. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehae753.
3
Applying Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Clinical Trials: Potential Impacts and Obstacles.人工智能在儿科临床试验中的应用:潜在影响与障碍
J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2024 Jun;29(3):336-340. doi: 10.5863/1551-6776-29.3.336. Epub 2024 Jun 10.
4
Comparison of Investigator-Reported vs Centrally Adjudicated Major Adverse Cardiac Events: A Secondary Analysis of the COMPASS Trial.研究者报告的与中心裁定的主要不良心脏事件比较:COMPASS 试验的二次分析。
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Nov 1;5(11):e2243201. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.43201.
5
Should we adjudicate outcomes in stroke trials? A systematic review.我们是否应该对中风试验的结果进行评判?一项系统评价。
Int J Stroke. 2023 Feb;18(2):154-162. doi: 10.1177/17474930221094682. Epub 2022 May 10.