Suppr超能文献

危重症患者的阳性单中心随机试验及后续多中心随机试验:一项系统评价

Positive single-center randomized trials and subsequent multicenter randomized trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review.

作者信息

Kotani Yuki, Turi Stefano, Ortalda Alessandro, Baiardo Redaelli Martina, Marchetti Cristiano, Landoni Giovanni, Bellomo Rinaldo

机构信息

Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.

School of Medicine, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Via Olgettina 58, 20132, Milan, Italy.

出版信息

Crit Care. 2023 Nov 28;27(1):465. doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04755-5.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

It is unclear how often survival benefits observed in single-center randomized controlled trials (sRCTs) involving critically ill patients are confirmed by subsequent multicenter randomized controlled trials (mRCTs). We aimed to perform a systemic literature review of sRCTs with a statistically significant mortality reduction and to evaluate whether subsequent mRCTs confirmed such reduction.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for sRCTs published in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, or Lancet, from inception until December 31, 2016. We selected studies reporting a statistically significant mortality decrease using any intervention (drug, technique, or strategy) in adult critically ill patients. We then searched for subsequent mRCTs addressing the same research question tested by the sRCT. We compared the concordance of results between sRCTs and mRCTs when any mRCT was available. We registered this systematic review in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023455362).

RESULTS

We identified 19 sRCTs reporting a significant mortality reduction in adult critically ill patients. For 16 sRCTs, we identified at least one subsequent mRCT (24 trials in total), while the interventions from three sRCTs have not yet been addressed in a subsequent mRCT. Only one out of 16 sRCTs (6%) was followed by a mRCT replicating a significant mortality reduction; 14 (88%) were followed by mRCTs with no mortality difference. The positive finding of one sRCT (6%) on intensive glycemic control was contradicted by a subsequent mRCT showing a significant mortality increase. Of the 14 sRCTs referenced at least once in international guidelines, six (43%) have since been either removed or suggested against in the most recent versions of relevant guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Mortality reduction shown by sRCTs is typically not replicated by mRCTs. The findings of sRCTs should be considered hypothesis-generating and should not contribute to guidelines.

摘要

背景

目前尚不清楚在涉及重症患者的单中心随机对照试验(sRCT)中观察到的生存获益在随后的多中心随机对照试验(mRCT)中得到证实的频率。我们旨在对死亡率有统计学显著降低的sRCT进行系统的文献综述,并评估随后的mRCT是否证实了这种降低。

方法

我们在PubMed中检索了自创刊至2016年12月31日在《新英格兰医学杂志》《美国医学会杂志》或《柳叶刀》上发表的sRCT。我们选择了报告使用任何干预措施(药物、技术或策略)使成年重症患者死亡率有统计学显著降低的研究。然后,我们检索了针对与sRCT所测试的相同研究问题的后续mRCT。当有任何mRCT可用时,我们比较了sRCT和mRCT结果的一致性。我们在国际前瞻性系统评价注册库PROSPERO(CRD42023455362)中注册了该系统评价。

结果

我们确定了19项报告成年重症患者死亡率有显著降低的sRCT。对于16项sRCT,我们确定了至少一项后续mRCT(总共24项试验),而三项sRCT的干预措施尚未在后续mRCT中得到探讨。16项sRCT中只有1项(6%)之后有mRCT重复了显著的死亡率降低;14项(88%)之后的mRCT显示死亡率无差异。一项关于强化血糖控制的sRCT的阳性结果(6%)被随后一项显示死亡率显著增加的mRCT所反驳。在国际指南中至少被引用一次的14项sRCT中,有六项(43%)在相关指南的最新版本中已被删除或建议不采用。

结论

sRCT显示的死亡率降低通常未被mRCT重复。sRCT的结果应被视为产生假设,不应纳入指南。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d167/10685543/76b8028a1470/13054_2023_4755_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验