Suppr超能文献

观察随机临床试验中死亡率的干预效果:方法学研究方案。

Observed intervention effects for mortality in randomised clinical trials: a methodological study protocol.

机构信息

Department of Neonatology, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark

Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2023 Jun 14;13(6):e072550. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072550.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

It is essential to choose a realistic anticipated intervention effect when calculating a sample size for a randomised clinical trial. Unfortunately, anticipated intervention effects are often inflated, when compared with the 'true' intervention effects. This is documented for mortality in critical care trials. A similar pattern might exist across different medical specialties. This study aims to estimate the range of observed intervention effects for all-cause mortality in trials included in Cochrane Reviews, within each Cochrane Review Group.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will include randomised clinical trials assessing all-cause mortality as an outcome. Trials will be identified from Cochrane Reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Cochrane Reviews will be clustered according to the registered Cochrane Review Group (eg, Anaesthesia, Emergency and Critical Care) and the statistical analyses will be conducted for each Cochrane Review Group and overall. The median relative risk and IQR for all-cause mortality and the proportion of trials with a relative all-cause mortality risk within seven different ranges will be reported (relative risk below 0.70, 0.70-0.79, 0.80-0.89, 0.90-1.09, 1.10-1.19, 1.20-1.30 and above 1.30). Subgroup analyses will explore the effects of original design, sample size, risk of bias, disease, intervention type, follow-up length, participating centres, funding type, information size and outcome hierarchy.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Since we will use summary data from trials already approved by relevant ethical committees, this study does not require ethical approval. Regardless of our findings, the results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal.

摘要

简介

在为随机临床试验计算样本量时,选择现实的预期干预效果至关重要。然而,与“真实”干预效果相比,预期干预效果往往被夸大。这在重症监护试验的死亡率中得到了证实。在不同的医学专业中,可能存在类似的模式。本研究旨在估计在每个 Cochrane 评价组内,Cochrane 评价中包含的所有原因死亡率的临床试验中观察到的干预效果范围。

方法和分析

我们将纳入评估所有原因死亡率作为结局的随机临床试验。试验将从发表在 Cochrane 系统评价数据库中的 Cochrane 评价中确定。Cochrane 评价将根据注册的 Cochrane 评价组(如麻醉、急救和重症监护)进行聚类,并且将对每个 Cochrane 评价组和整体进行统计分析。将报告所有原因死亡率的中位数相对风险和 IQR,以及相对所有原因死亡率风险在七个不同范围内的试验比例(相对风险低于 0.70、0.70-0.79、0.80-0.89、0.90-1.09、1.10-1.19、1.20-1.30 和高于 1.30)。亚组分析将探讨原始设计、样本量、偏倚风险、疾病、干预类型、随访时间、参与中心、资助类型、信息大小和结局等级的影响。

伦理和传播

由于我们将使用已获得相关伦理委员会批准的试验的汇总数据,因此本研究不需要伦理批准。无论我们的研究结果如何,研究结果都将在国际同行评议期刊上发表。

相似文献

3
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.

本文引用的文献

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