Division of Immunology, Immunity to Infection and Respiratory Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; North West Lung Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Department of Respiratory Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital - Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2023 Dec;164:88-95. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.10.011. Epub 2023 Oct 26.
To inform clinical practice guidelines, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the management of pneumonia need to address the outcomes that are most important to patients and health professionals using consistent instruments, to enable results to be compared, contrasted, and combined as appropriate. This systematic review describes the outcomes reported in clinical trials of pneumonia management and the instruments used to measure these outcomes.
Based on a prospective protocol, we searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL and clinical trial registries for ongoing or completed clinical trials evaluating pneumonia management in adults in any clinical setting. We grouped reported outcomes thematically and classified them following the COMET Initiative's taxonomy. We describe instruments used for assessing each outcome.
We found 280 eligible RCTs of which 115 (41.1%) enrolled critically ill patients and 165 (58.9%) predominantly noncritically ill patients. We identified 43 distinct outcomes and 108 measurement instruments, excluding nonvalidated scores and questionnaires. Almost all trials reported clinical/physiological outcomes (97.5%). Safety (63.2%), mortality (56.4%), resource use (48.6%) and life impact (11.8%) outcomes were less frequently addressed. The most frequently reported outcomes were treatment success (60.7%), mortality (56.4%) and adverse events (41.1%). There was significant variation in the selection of measurement instruments, with approximately two-thirds used in less than 10 of the 280 RCTs. None of the patient-reported outcomes were used in 10 or more RCTs.
This review reveals significant variation in outcomes and measurement instruments reported in clinical trials of pneumonia management. Outcomes that are important to patients and health professionals are often omitted. Our findings support the need for a rigorous core outcome set, such as that being developed by the European Respiratory Society.
为了为临床实践指南提供信息,需要使用一致的工具来解决对患者和卫生专业人员最重要的结局,以实现结果的比较、对比和适当的组合,从而使管理肺炎的随机对照试验(RCT)能够解决管理肺炎的 RCT 中报告的结局和用于测量这些结局的工具。
基于前瞻性方案,我们在 MEDLINE/PubMed、Cochrane 中心和临床试验登记处搜索了评估成人任何临床环境中肺炎管理的正在进行或已完成的临床试验。我们按照 COMET 倡议的分类法将报告的结局进行了主题分组,并描述了用于评估每个结局的工具。
我们发现了 280 项符合条件的 RCT,其中 115 项(41.1%)纳入了危重症患者,165 项(58.9%)主要纳入了非危重症患者。我们确定了 43 个不同的结局和 108 个测量工具,不包括未验证的评分和问卷。几乎所有试验都报告了临床/生理结局(97.5%)。安全性(63.2%)、死亡率(56.4%)、资源利用(48.6%)和生活影响(11.8%)结局较少被报道。报告最多的结局是治疗成功(60.7%)、死亡率(56.4%)和不良事件(41.1%)。测量工具的选择存在显著差异,大约三分之二的工具在 280 项 RCT 中少于 10 项被使用。没有一个患者报告的结局在 10 项或更多 RCT 中被使用。
本综述揭示了管理肺炎的 RCT 中报告的结局和测量工具存在显著差异。对患者和卫生专业人员重要的结局往往被忽略。我们的发现支持需要一个严格的核心结局集,例如欧洲呼吸学会正在开发的核心结局集。