Suppr超能文献

痛风随机试验中的结果报告:来自OMERACT痛风工作组的一项系统综述,评估核心结局集的应用情况。

Outcome reporting in randomized trials in gout: A systematic scoping review from the OMERACT gout working group assessing the uptake of the core outcome set.

作者信息

Morillon Melanie B, Nørup Alexander, Singh Jasvinder A, Dalbeth Nicola, Taylor William J, Kennedy Martin A, Pedersen Birthe Mette, Grainger Rebecca, Tugwell Peter, Perez-Ruiz Fernando, Diaz-Torne Cesar, Edwards N Lawrence, Shea Beverley, Ellingsen Torkell J, Christensen Robin, Stamp Lisa K

机构信息

Section for Biostatistics and Evidence-Based Research, the Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Denmark & Research Unit of Rheumatology, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense University Hospital, Denmark; Department of Internal Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Svendborg, Denmark.

Section for Biostatistics and Evidence-Based Research, the Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Denmark & Research Unit of Rheumatology, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense University Hospital, Denmark.

出版信息

Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2023 Jun;60:152191. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2023.152191. Epub 2023 Mar 15.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The selection and reporting of core outcome measures in clinical trials is essential for patients, researchers, and healthcare providers for clinical research to have an impact on healthcare. In this systematic scoping review, we aimed to quantify the extent to which gout clinical trials are collecting and reporting data in accordance with the core outcome domains from Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) published in 2009 applicable for both acute and chronic trials and evaluate the reporting according to the core domains before and after the 2009 OMERACT endorsement.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) allocating people with gout versus an active pharmacological gout treatment or a control comparator (no date limitation). We extracted the data in accordance with the core outcome sets, focusing individually on core outcome domains and the core outcome measurements for acute and chronic trials, respectively. In this study 'Acute trials' reflect studies that describe interventions for short term management of gout flares, and 'chronic trials' describe interventions for long-term urate lowering therapy in the management of gout.

RESULTS

From 8,522 records identified in the database search, 134 full text papers were reviewed, and 71 trials were included, of which 36 were acute and 35 were chronic. Only 3 of 36 (8%) acute trials reported all five core domains and none of the 35 included chronic trials reported all 7 core domains. In the acute trials, twenty-seven unique measurement instruments across the 5 core domains were identified. For chronic trials there were 31 unique measurement instruments used across the 7 core domains. Serum urate was reported in 100% of the chronic trials and gout flares in 80%. However, other core domains were reported in <30% of chronic trials. In particular the patient-important domains such as HR-QOL, patient global assessment and activity limitations were rarely reported. A broad variety of different measurement instruments were used to assess each endorsed core domain, a minority of trials used the OMERACT endorsed instruments. For acute trials, the number reporting on all core domains was consistently low and no change was detected before and after the endorsement of the core domains in 2009. None of the included chronic trials reported on all 7 endorsed core domains at any time.

CONCLUSION

In this study we found a low adherence with the intended endorsed (i.e., core) outcome domains for acute and chronic gout studies which represents a poor uptake of the global OMERACT efforts for the minimum of what should be measured in clinical trials. In addition, there is a significant variation in how the OMERACT endorsed outcome domains have been measured. This systematic review demonstrates the need for continuous encouragement among gout researchers to adhere to OMERACT core domains as well as further guidance on outcome measurements reporting.

REGISTRATION

Prospero: CRD42019151316.

摘要

目的

临床试验中核心结局指标的选择与报告对于患者、研究人员及医疗服务提供者而言至关重要,这样临床研究才能对医疗保健产生影响。在这项系统性综述中,我们旨在量化痛风临床试验根据2009年发布的《风湿病结局指标》(OMERACT)中适用于急性和慢性试验的核心结局领域收集和报告数据的程度,并评估2009年OMERACT认可前后核心领域的报告情况。

方法

我们检索了多个数据库,包括PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆(其中包括Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)和Cochrane系统评价数据库(CDSR))以及www.CLINICALTRIALS.gov,以查找将痛风患者与积极的痛风药物治疗或对照比较组(无日期限制)进行分配的随机对照试验(RCT)。我们根据核心结局集提取数据,分别重点关注急性和慢性试验的核心结局领域及核心结局测量指标。在本研究中,“急性试验”指描述痛风发作短期管理干预措施的研究,“慢性试验”指描述痛风管理中长期降尿酸治疗干预措施的研究。

结果

在数据库检索中识别出的8522条记录中,共审查了134篇全文论文,纳入了71项试验,其中36项为急性试验,35项为慢性试验。36项急性试验中只有3项(8%)报告了所有五个核心领域,35项纳入的慢性试验中没有一项报告所有七个核心领域。在急性试验中,在五个核心领域共识别出27种独特的测量工具。对于慢性试验,在七个核心领域共使用了31种独特的测量工具。100%的慢性试验报告了血清尿酸,80%报告了痛风发作。然而,其他核心领域在不到30%的慢性试验中被报告。特别是患者重要领域,如健康相关生活质量(HR-QOL)、患者整体评估和活动受限,很少被报告。评估每个认可的核心领域使用了各种各样不同的测量工具,少数试验使用了OMERACT认可的工具。对于急性试验,报告所有核心领域的数量一直很低,2009年核心领域认可前后未发现变化。纳入的慢性试验在任何时候都没有一项报告所有七个认可的核心领域。

结论

在本研究中,我们发现急性和慢性痛风研究对预期认可(即核心)结局领域的依从性较低,这表明全球OMERACT在临床试验中应测量的最低内容方面的努力未得到充分采纳。此外,OMERACT认可的结局领域的测量方式存在显著差异。这项系统性综述表明,需要持续鼓励痛风研究人员遵守OMERACT核心领域,并提供关于结局测量报告的进一步指导。

注册信息

Prospero:CRD42019151316

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