Suppr超能文献

前瞻性随机对照试验是否符合备案方案?对2010年至2023年的206项试验进行的自旋研究。

Do prospective randomized controlled trials comply with filed protocols? Spin study of 206 trials from 2010 to 2023.

作者信息

Erivan Roger, Michon Bastien, Villatte Guillaume, Descamps Stéphane, Boisgard Stéphane, Martz Pierre

机构信息

Université Clermont Auvergne, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, CNRS, SIGMA Clermont, ICCF, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.

Service de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique, Hôpital François Mitterrand, CHU, 21079 Dijon Cedex, France.

出版信息

Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2024 Oct 1:104013. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2024.104013.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Prospective randomized controlled trials (RCT) have a robust methodology, but some distortions may occur during the course of study. Some protocols may not be available at the time an article is reading. Some authors may change the methodology between the time the protocol was submitted and when the trial results are actually published. Others may distort results to favor more attractive findings and draw conclusions that support prior hypotheses. This has rarely been investigated and none explored the RCTs published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS). Therefore, we did a retrospective investigation aiming to determine: (1) the proportion of trials with a protocol deposited and accessible to the reader, (2) whether the trials scrupulously followed the filed protocols.

HYPOTHESIS

Protocols were available in over 80% of cases, and these protocols were followed in over 80% of trials for the primary endpoint.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of articles published in the JBJS between January 2010 and November 2023. Differences in primary and secondary endpoints between protocols and articles were sought.

RESULTS

Of the 206 RCT articles studied, 113 (54.9%) described clear and identifiable endpoints, and 93 (45.1%) were not identifiable and were inferred in the results; 184 (89.3%) articles identified a trial protocol. For the 184 articles (89.3%) declaring a trial protocol in the text, 23 (11.1%) protocols were not accessible. In all, 45 articles (21.8%) thus had no protocol available on the Internet (i.e., not available to the reader either because it was not cited in the text or because it was not accessible) so we analyzed 161 articles. The primary endpoint remained unchanged in 97 articles (60.2%) out of the 161 studied, was changed in 64 articles (39.8%), and was lacking (protocol not accessible) in 45 articles (21.8% of all articles). The secondary endpoints of the articles were unchanged in 61 articles (37.9%) out of the 161 studied.

DISCUSSION

Like other leading journals, JBJS publishes RCT articles containing a significant proportion of inconsistencies between preoperative trial protocols and the methods actually used in the research.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; retrospective comparative study non randomized.

摘要

引言

前瞻性随机对照试验(RCT)有稳健的方法学,但在研究过程中可能会出现一些偏差。在阅读文章时,一些试验方案可能无法获取。一些作者可能在试验方案提交之时到试验结果实际发表期间改变方法学。其他作者可能歪曲结果以支持更有吸引力的发现,并得出支持先前假设的结论。这很少被研究,且无人探究发表在《骨与关节外科杂志》(JBJS)上的随机对照试验。因此,我们进行了一项回顾性调查,旨在确定:(1)有存档且读者可获取试验方案的试验比例;(2)试验是否严格遵循存档的试验方案。

假设

超过80%的情况下有试验方案可用,并且超过80%的试验在主要终点方面遵循了这些方案。

患者与方法

这是一项对2010年1月至2023年11月发表在JBJS上的文章的回顾性研究。我们查找了试验方案与文章在主要终点和次要终点方面的差异。

结果

在研究的206篇随机对照试验文章中,113篇(54.9%)描述了清晰且可识别的终点,93篇(45.1%)无法识别,是在结果中推断得出的;184篇(89.3%)文章提到了试验方案。对于在文中声明有试验方案的184篇文章(89.3%),23篇(11.1%)试验方案无法获取。总计45篇文章(21.8%)在互联网上没有试验方案可用(即,要么因为在文中未被引用,要么因为无法获取,读者无法获取),所以我们分析了161篇文章。在161篇研究文章中,97篇(60.2%)的主要终点保持不变,64篇(39.8%)发生了变化,45篇(占所有文章的21.8%)缺乏主要终点(试验方案无法获取)。在161篇研究文章中,61篇(37.9%)文章的次要终点保持不变。

讨论

与其他领先期刊一样,JBJS发表的随机对照试验文章中,术前试验方案与研究中实际使用的方法之间存在很大比例的不一致。

证据水平

III级;非随机回顾性比较研究。

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