Suppr超能文献

评估镇痛临床试验中的多重性报告:一项分析性综述。

Evaluating multiplicity reporting in analgesic clinical trials: An analytical review.

作者信息

Khan Maaz S, Zarmer Lori F, Liang Jie, Saroukhani Sepideh, Lucas Anthony R, McCartney Colin J L, Chaudhry Rabail

机构信息

Banner University Medical Center-Tucson, Tucson, Arizona, USA.

Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.

出版信息

Eur J Pain. 2025 Jan;29(1):e4756. doi: 10.1002/ejp.4756. Epub 2024 Nov 25.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Analgesia trials often demands multiple comparisons to assess various treatment arms, outcomes, or repeated assessments. These multiple comparisons risk inflating the false positive rate. Multiplicity correction in recent analgesic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remains unclear despite statistical method advancements and regulatory guidelines. Our study aimed to identify reporting inadequacies in multiple analysis adjustments and explanations to understand these deficiencies.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

This review analysed RCTs from the European Journal of Pain, the Journal of Pain, and PAIN, published between January 2018 and December 2022. We included randomized, double-blind trials focusing on pain outcomes. Data extraction, managed by three researchers using predefined criteria, included trial characteristics, multiplicity presence, and correction methods. Descriptive statistical analyses included Fisher's exact, and Holm method for multiple comparisons.

RESULTS

Out of 112 articles, 48 pre-specified a primary analysis plan. Multiple analyses were observed in 65 articles, with 60% adjusting for all comparisons, primarily using the Bonferroni method. Compared with previous studies, no significant changes in multiplicity correction practices were noted when stratified by trial type, size, and sponsor.

CONCLUSIONS

The study reveals a persistent reliance on multiple comparisons in analgesic clinical trials without a corresponding increase in multiplicity corrections emphasizing a need for enhanced reporting and implementation of statistical adjustments. We acknowledge limitations in categorizing studies, the use of a surrogate for the trial stage, and sourcing data from journal webpages rather than a database.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

This study flags inadequate reporting on multiplicity correction in analgesic trials, stressing the risk of false positives and the urgent need for enhanced reporting to boost reproducibility.

摘要

背景与目的

镇痛试验通常需要进行多次比较,以评估各种治疗组、结局或重复评估。这些多次比较存在增加假阳性率的风险。尽管统计方法有所进步且有监管指南,但近期镇痛随机对照试验(RCT)中的多重性校正仍不明确。我们的研究旨在识别多次分析调整和解释中的报告不足,以了解这些缺陷。

数据库与数据处理

本综述分析了2018年1月至2022年12月期间发表在《欧洲疼痛杂志》《疼痛杂志》和《疼痛》上的RCT。我们纳入了聚焦疼痛结局的随机双盲试验。由三名研究人员使用预定义标准进行的数据提取包括试验特征、多重性的存在情况和校正方法。描述性统计分析包括费舍尔精确检验和用于多重比较的霍尔姆方法。

结果

在112篇文章中,48篇预先指定了主要分析计划。65篇文章中观察到了多次分析,其中60%对所有比较进行了调整,主要使用邦费罗尼方法。与先前的研究相比,按试验类型、规模和资助者分层时,多重性校正做法没有显著变化。

结论

该研究揭示了镇痛临床试验中持续依赖多次比较,而多重性校正却没有相应增加,强调需要加强统计调整的报告和实施。我们承认在对研究进行分类、使用试验阶段的替代指标以及从期刊网页而非数据库获取数据方面存在局限性。

意义声明

本研究指出了镇痛试验中多重性校正报告不足的问题,强调了假阳性的风险以及加强报告以提高可重复性的迫切需求。

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