Suppr超能文献

手部外科随机对照试验中的偏倚:系统评价和荟萃流行病学研究。

Bias in Hand Surgical Randomized Controlled Trials: Systematic Review and Meta-Epidemiological Study.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Division of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Oulu University Hospital, Medical Research Center, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.

Department of Hand Surgery, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland; Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.

出版信息

J Hand Surg Am. 2022 Jun;47(6):526-533. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2022.01.027. Epub 2022 Mar 24.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Inappropriately reported or conducted studies may decrease the quality of care due to under- or overestimation of the benefits or harms of interventions. Our aim was to evaluate how often hand surgical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) use and report adequate methods to ensure internal validity, and whether inadequate reporting or methods are associated with the magnitude of treatment effect estimates.

METHODS

Data Sources were the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase databases until November 2020. We included published RCTs investigating the effects of any surgical intervention in the hand and wrist region. We assessed internal validity using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool for 6 domains: selection, performance, detection, attrition, selective reporting, and "other" bias. We extracted the primary outcome and calculated the effect size for each study. We used mixed-effect meta-regression to assess whether the RoB modified the magnitude of the effects.

RESULTS

For 207 assessed trials, the RoB was unclear or high for 72% in selection, 93% in performance, 88% in detection, 25% in attrition, 22% in selective reporting, and 34% in the "other" bias domain. Trials with a high or unclear risk of selection bias yielded 0.28 standardized mean difference (95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.55) larger effect sizes compared to studies with a low risk. Risks of bias for other domains did not modify the intervention effects. The risk for selection bias declined over time: the odds ratio for a high or unclear RoB was 0.90 (95% confidence interval, 0.85-0.95) per additional year of publication CONCLUSIONS: The internal validity and credibility of hand surgical RCTs can be improved by using established methods to achieve true randomization, blinding of the participants and study personnel, publishing the trial protocol and avoiding selective reporting of the outcomes, and reporting the trial as recommended in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Clinicians should be aware that RCTs that do not use or report proper randomization and allocation concealment may overestimate the treatment effects.

摘要

目的

不恰当的报告或实施的研究可能会由于低估或高估干预措施的益处或危害,从而降低医疗质量。我们的目的是评估手部外科随机对照试验(RCT)使用和报告确保内部有效性的方法的频率,以及不充分的报告或方法是否与治疗效果估计值的大小有关。

方法

数据来源是 Cochrane 对照试验中央注册库、MEDLINE 和 Embase 数据库,检索时间截至 2020 年 11 月。我们纳入了研究手部和腕部区域任何手术干预效果的已发表 RCT。我们使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险(RoB)工具评估了 6 个领域的内部有效性:选择、实施、检测、失访、选择性报告和“其他”偏倚。我们提取了主要结局,并计算了每项研究的效应大小。我们使用混合效应荟萃回归来评估 RoB 是否改变了效应的大小。

结果

对于 207 项评估的试验,72%的试验在选择方面的 RoB 不明确或高,93%的试验在实施方面的 RoB 不明确或高,88%的试验在检测方面的 RoB 不明确或高,25%的试验在失访方面的 RoB 不明确或高,22%的试验在选择性报告方面的 RoB 不明确或高,34%的试验在“其他”偏倚方面的 RoB 不明确或高。与低风险研究相比,选择偏倚高或不明确的试验的效应大小标准化均数差(95%置信区间,0.02-0.55)大 0.28。其他偏倚领域的风险并未改变干预效果。选择偏倚的风险随时间降低:每增加一年发表的文章,高或不明确的 RoB 的比值比为 0.90(95%置信区间,0.85-0.95)。

结论

通过使用建立的方法实现真正的随机化、参与者和研究人员的盲法、发表试验方案以及避免选择性报告结果,并按照临床试验报告的统一标准声明报告试验,可以提高手部外科 RCT 的内部有效性和可信度。

临床意义

临床医生应该意识到,不使用或不报告适当的随机化和分配隐藏的 RCT 可能会高估治疗效果。

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