Suppr超能文献

手术随机对照试验中安慰剂对照与非手术对照的参与者招募和流失:一项荟萃流行病学研究和荟萃分析。

Participant recruitment and attrition in surgical randomised trials with placebo controls versus non-operative controls: a meta-epidemiological study and meta-analysis.

机构信息

St George and Sutherland Clinical Campuses, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

St George and Sutherland Clinical Campuses, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine & Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2024 Apr 18;14(4):e080258. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080258.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare differences in recruitment and attrition between placebo control randomised trials of surgery, and trials of the same surgical interventions and conditions that used non-operative (non-placebo) controls.

DESIGN

Meta-epidemiological study.

DATA SOURCES

Randomised controlled trials were identified from an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception date to 21 November 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Placebo control trials evaluating efficacy of any surgical intervention and non-operative control trials of the same surgical intervention were included in this study. 25 730 records were retrieved from our systemic search, identifying 61 placebo control and 38 non-operative control trials for inclusion in analysis.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measures were recruitment and attrition. These were assessed in terms of recruitment rate (number of participants enrolled, as a proportion of those eligible) and overall attrition rate (composite of dropout, loss to follow-up and cross-overs, expressed as proportion of total sample size). Secondary outcome measures included participant cross-over rate, dropout and loss to follow-up.

RESULTS

Unadjusted pooled recruitment and attrition rates were similar between placebo and non-operative control trials. Study characteristics were not significantly different apart from time to primary timepoint which was shorter in studies with placebo controls (365 vs 274 days, p=0.006). After adjusting for covariates (follow-up duration and number of timepoints), the attrition rate of placebo control trials was almost twice as high compared with non-operative controlled-trials (incident rate ratio (IRR) (95% CI) 1.8 (1.1 to 3.0), p=0.032). The incorporation of one additional follow-up timepoint (regardless of follow-up duration) was associated with reduced attrition in placebo control surgical trials (IRR (95% CI) 0.64 (0.52 to 0.79), p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Placebo control trials of surgery have similar recruitment issues but higher attrition compared with non-operative (non-placebo) control trials. Study design should incorporate strategies such as increased timepoints for given follow-up duration to mitigate losses to follow-up and dropout.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019117364.

摘要

目的

比较手术安慰剂对照随机试验与相同手术干预和条件的非手术(非安慰剂)对照试验在招募和脱落方面的差异。

设计

Meta 流行病学研究。

数据来源

从 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库的起始日期到 2018 年 11 月 21 日,对随机对照试验进行了电子检索。

研究选择

纳入评估任何手术干预疗效的安慰剂对照试验和相同手术干预的非手术对照试验。从系统搜索中检索到 25730 条记录,确定了 61 项安慰剂对照和 38 项非手术对照试验纳入分析。

主要结局指标

主要结局指标是招募和脱落。以招募率(纳入的参与者人数,占合格人数的比例)和总体脱落率(脱落、失访和交叉的综合,以总样本量的比例表示)来评估。次要结局指标包括参与者交叉率、脱落和失访。

结果

安慰剂对照试验和非手术对照试验的未调整 pooled 招募率和脱落率相似。除了安慰剂对照研究的主要时间点更短(365 天 vs 274 天,p=0.006)外,研究特征没有显著差异。调整随访时间和时间点数量等协变量后,安慰剂对照试验的脱落率几乎是非手术对照试验的两倍(发生率比(IRR)(95%CI)1.8(1.1 至 3.0),p=0.032)。在安慰剂对照外科试验中,每增加一个随访时间点(无论随访时间长短),脱落率均降低(IRR(95%CI)0.64(0.52 至 0.79),p<0.001)。

结论

与非手术(非安慰剂)对照试验相比,手术安慰剂对照试验的招募问题相似,但脱落率更高。研究设计应纳入增加随访时间点等策略,以减少失访和脱落。

前瞻性注册号

CRD42019117364。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4046/11029374/9e020815e05d/bmjopen-2023-080258f01.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