Suppr超能文献

亚组分析在卒中试验中的可信度较低:一项系统评价。

The credibility of subgroup analyses reported in stroke trials is low: A systematic review.

机构信息

Department of Community Health Sciences and O'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.

Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

出版信息

Int J Stroke. 2023 Dec;18(10):1161-1168. doi: 10.1177/17474930231168517. Epub 2023 May 2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Subgroup analyses are widely used to evaluate the heterogeneity of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. However, there is a limited investigation of the quality of prespecified and reported subgroup analyses in stroke trials. This study evaluated the credibility of subgroup analyses in stroke trials.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We searched Medline/PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Web of Science from inception to 24 March 2021. Three reviewers screened, extracted, and analyzed the data from the publications. Primary publications of stroke trials that reported at least one subgroup effect and had published corresponding study protocols were included. The Instrument for Assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) was used to examine the quality of the subgroup effects reported, with each subgroup effect assigned a credibility rating ranging from very low to high. Subgroup effects with two or more "definitely no" responses received a low credibility rating. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials version 2.

RESULTS

Seventy-four articles met the inclusion criteria and reported a combined total of 647 subgroup effects. The median sample size was 1264 (interquartile range (IQR): 380-3876), and the median number of subgroups prespecified in the protocol was 6 (IQR: 2-10). Sixty-one (82%) studies used the univariate test of interaction. Of the total 647 subgroup effects reported in these studies, 319 (49%) were reported in acute stroke trials, while 423 (65%) had low credibility.

CONCLUSION

The quality of subgroup analysis reporting in stroke trials remains poor. More effort is needed to train trialists on the best methods for designing and performing subgroup analyses, and how to report the results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

We prospectively registered the review with International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (registration number: CRD42020223133).

摘要

背景

亚组分析广泛用于评估随机临床试验中治疗效果的异质性。然而,对于中风试验中预设和报告的亚组分析的质量,研究还很有限。本研究评估了中风试验中亚组分析的可信度。

方法和分析

我们从建库至 2021 年 3 月 24 日在 Medline/PubMed、Embase、Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库和 Web of Science 中进行了检索。由 3 位评审员筛选、提取和分析出版物中的数据。纳入至少报告了 1 个亚组效果且发表了相应研究方案的中风试验的主要出版物。使用评估效应修正分析可信度的工具(ICEMAN)来评估报告的亚组效果的质量,为每个亚组效果分配可信度评级,范围从极低到高。有两个或更多“绝对否”回答的亚组效果评级为低可信度。使用 Cochrane 随机试验偏倚风险工具(版本 2)评估偏倚风险。

结果

74 篇文章符合纳入标准,共报告了 647 个亚组效果。中位样本量为 1264(四分位距(IQR):380-3876),方案中预设亚组的中位数为 6(IQR:2-10)。61(82%)项研究使用了单变量交互检验。在这些研究中报告的总共 647 个亚组效果中,319(49%)是在急性中风试验中报告的,而 423(65%)的可信度较低。

结论

中风试验中亚组分析报告的质量仍然很差。需要更加努力地培训试验设计者有关设计和执行亚组分析的最佳方法,以及如何报告结果。

试验注册

我们对该综述进行了前瞻性注册,注册编号为:国际前瞻性系统评价注册库(registration number: CRD42020223133)。

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