Suppr超能文献

ARDS 研究中的试验间异质性。

Between-trial heterogeneity in ARDS research.

机构信息

Department of Intensive Care, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, mail stop ZH 7D-172, 1081HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Research VUmc Intensive Care (REVIVE), Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Intensive Care Med. 2021 Apr;47(4):422-434. doi: 10.1007/s00134-021-06370-w. Epub 2021 Mar 13.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) revealed indeterminate or conflicting study results. We aimed to systematically evaluate between-trial heterogeneity in reporting standards and trial outcome.

METHODS

A systematic review of RCTs published between 2000 and 2019 was performed including adult ARDS patients receiving lung-protective ventilation. A random-effects meta-regression model was applied to quantify heterogeneity (non-random variability) and to evaluate trial and patient characteristics as sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

In total, 67 RCTs were included. The 28-day control-group mortality rate ranged from 10 to 67% with large non-random heterogeneity (I = 88%, p < 0.0001). Reported baseline patient characteristics explained some of the outcome heterogeneity, but only six trials (9%) reported all four independently predictive variables (mean age, mean lung injury score, mean plateau pressure and mean arterial pH). The 28-day control group mortality adjusted for patient characteristics (i.e. the residual heterogeneity) ranged from 18 to 45%. Trials with significant benefit in the primary outcome reported a higher control group mortality than trials with an indeterminate outcome or harm (mean 28-day control group mortality: 44% vs. 28%; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Among ARDS RCTs in the lung-protective ventilation era, there was large variability in the description of baseline characteristics and significant unexplainable heterogeneity in 28-day control group mortality. These findings signify problems with the generalizability of ARDS research and underline the urgent need for standardized reporting of trial and baseline characteristics.

摘要

目的

大多数急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者的随机对照试验(RCT)显示结果不确定或相互矛盾。我们旨在系统评估报告标准和试验结果之间的试验间异质性。

方法

对 2000 年至 2019 年期间发表的成人 ARDS 患者接受肺保护性通气的 RCT 进行系统评价。应用随机效应荟萃回归模型量化异质性(非随机变异性),并评估试验和患者特征作为异质性的来源。

结果

共纳入 67 项 RCT。对照组 28 天死亡率为 10%至 67%,存在较大的非随机异质性(I=88%,p<0.0001)。报告的基线患者特征解释了部分结局异质性,但只有 6 项试验(9%)报告了所有四个独立预测变量(平均年龄、平均肺损伤评分、平均平台压和平均动脉 pH)。调整患者特征后的 28 天对照组死亡率(即剩余异质性)为 18%至 45%。主要结局有显著获益的试验报告的对照组 28 天死亡率高于结局不确定或有害的试验(对照组 28 天死亡率:44% vs. 28%;p=0.001)。

结论

在肺保护性通气时代的 ARDS RCT 中,基线特征的描述存在很大的变异性,28 天对照组死亡率存在显著的无法解释的异质性。这些发现表明 ARDS 研究的可推广性存在问题,并强调了标准化报告试验和基线特征的迫切需要。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a31f/8035108/bd51c51c86c0/134_2021_6370_Fig1_HTML.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