Yaacoub Sally, Porcher Raphael, Pellat Anna, Bonnet Hillary, Tran Viet-Thi, Ravaud Philippe, Boutron Isabelle
Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, INRAe, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Paris, France.
Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu Centre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, Paris, France.
BMJ Med. 2024 Oct 30;3(1):e000932. doi: 10.1136/bmjmed-2024-000932. eCollection 2024.
To examine the characteristics of comparative non-randomised studies that assess the effectiveness or safety, or both, of drug treatments.
Cross sectional study.
Medline (Ovid), for reports published from 1 June 2022 to 31 August 2022.
Reports of comparative non-randomised studies that assessed the effectiveness or safety, or both, of drug treatments were included. A randomly ordered sample was screened until 200 eligible reports were found. Data on general characteristics, reporting characteristics, and time point alignment were extracted, and possible related biases, with a piloted form inspired by reporting guidelines and the target trial emulation framework.
Of 462 reports of non-randomised studies identified, 262 studies were excluded (32% had no comparator and 25% did not account for confounding factors). To assess time point alignment and possible related biases, three study time points were considered: eligibility, treatment assignment, and start of follow-up. Of the 200 included reports, 70% had one possible bias, related to: inclusion of prevalent users in 24%, post-treatment eligibility criteria in 32%, immortal time periods in 42%, and classification of treatment in 23%. Reporting was incomplete, and only 2% reported all six of the key elements considered: eligibility criteria (87%), description of treatment (46%), deviations in treatment (27%), causal contrast (11%), primary outcomes (90%), and confounding factors (88%). Most studies used routinely collected data (67%), but only 7% reported using validation studies of the codes or algorithms applied to select the population. Only 7% of reports mentioned registration on a trial registry and 3% had an available protocol.
The findings of the study suggest that although access to real world evidence could be valuable, the robustness and transparency of non-randomised studies need to be improved.
研究评估药物治疗有效性或安全性或两者的比较性非随机研究的特征。
横断面研究。
Medline(Ovid),用于检索2022年6月1日至2022年8月31日发表的报告。
纳入评估药物治疗有效性或安全性或两者的比较性非随机研究报告。对随机排序的样本进行筛选,直至找到200份符合条件的报告。提取关于一般特征、报告特征和时间点一致性的数据,并根据报告指南和目标试验模拟框架设计的试点表格分析可能存在的相关偏倚。
在识别出的462份非随机研究报告中,262项研究被排除(32%没有对照,25%未考虑混杂因素)。为评估时间点一致性和可能存在的相关偏倚,考虑了三个研究时间点:入选、治疗分配和随访开始。在纳入的200份报告中,70%存在一种可能的偏倚,涉及:24%纳入现患使用者、32%治疗后入选标准、42%不朽时间期以及23%治疗分类。报告不完整,只有2%报告了所考虑的全部六个关键要素:入选标准(87%)、治疗描述(46%)、治疗偏差(27%)、因果对比(11%)、主要结局(90%)和混杂因素(88%)。大多数研究使用常规收集的数据(67%),但只有7%报告使用了应用于选择研究人群的编码或算法的验证研究。只有7%的报告提及在试验注册库中注册,3%有可用的研究方案。
该研究结果表明,虽然获取真实世界证据可能很有价值,但非随机研究的稳健性和透明度需要提高。