Hecht Manuel, Blümle Anette, Binder Harald, Schumacher Martin, Binder Nadine
Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine - University of Freiburg, Stefan-Meier-Str. 26, 79104, Freiburg, Germany.
Clinical Trials Unit, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine - University of Freiburg, Elsässer Str. 2, 79110, Freiburg, Germany.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025 Mar 27;25(1):80. doi: 10.1186/s12874-025-02535-z.
The goal of evidence-based medicine is to make clinical decisions based on the best available, relevant evidence. For this to be possible, studies such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which are widely considered to provide the best evidence of all forms of primary research, must be visible and have an impact on clinical practice guidelines. We further investigated the impact of publicly and commercially sponsored RCTs on clinical practice guidelines by measuring direct and indirect impactful citations and the time to guideline impact.
We considered the sample from the IMPACT study, where a total of 691 RCTs (120 German investigator-initiated trials (IITs), 200 international IITs, 171 German industry-sponsored trials (ISTs) and 200 international ISTs) was sampled from registries (DFG-/BMBF-Websites, the German Clinical Trials Register, and from ClinicalTrials.gov) and followed prospectively. First, all eligible IITs were sampled. Then, ISTs were randomly selected while ensuring balance across certain trial characteristics. Next, the corresponding publications in the form of original research articles were identified. A search was then conducted for (1) systematic reviews (SRs) citing these articles and (2) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that cited either the original articles or the SRs. The methods and results of this effort were already published. In this investigation we aimed to better characterize the impact of RCTs in CPGs. Therefore, we identified all citations of the original articles and SRs in the citing CPGs and classified them into impactful and non-impactful. This allowed us to calculate an estimate for the guideline impact of a trial. In addition, we estimated the time-to-guideline-impact, defined as the time to a direct and indirect impactful citation in a CPG. Direct means that the publication of a trial was cited in the main text of a CPG. Indirect means that the publication was cited and included in the findings of a SR and the SR was cited in the main text of a CPG. We also investigated to what extent pre-defined study characteristics influenced the guideline impact using multivariable negative binomial regression as well as the time-to-guideline impact using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression.
Overall, 22% of RCTs impacted a CPG. For international ISTs, only 15% of trials had an impact in CPGs. Overall, of the 405 associated guidelines, 331 were impacted. Larger trials were associated with more impactful main text citations in CPGs and earlier time-to-guideline impact, while international industry-sponsored trials were associated with smaller impact on CPGs and longer time-to-guideline impact. IITs funded by governmental bodies in Germany reached an impact on CPGs that is on par with German ISTs or international IITs and ISTs.
This study demonstrated that a considerable number of trials previously identified as being linked to CPGs have had impact in those CPGs (85%). International ISTs seem to have a lower impact on CPGs, and fewer of them influence CPGs at all.
循证医学的目标是基于可得的最佳相关证据做出临床决策。要实现这一点,诸如随机对照试验(RCT)等研究必须清晰可见并对临床实践指南产生影响,因为随机对照试验被广泛认为能提供所有形式的原始研究中的最佳证据。我们通过测量直接和间接的有影响力的引用以及指南影响时间,进一步研究了由公共机构和商业机构资助的随机对照试验对临床实践指南的影响。
我们采用了IMPACT研究中的样本,从注册库(德国研究基金会/德国联邦教育及研究部网站、德国临床试验注册库以及美国国立医学图书馆的临床试验数据库)中抽取了总共691项随机对照试验(120项德国研究者发起的试验(IIT)、200项国际IIT、171项德国行业资助的试验(IST)和200项国际IST)并进行前瞻性跟踪。首先,抽取所有符合条件的IIT。然后,随机选择IST,同时确保某些试验特征的平衡。接下来,确定以原始研究文章形式发表的相应出版物。随后进行两项搜索:(1)引用这些文章的系统评价(SR);(2)引用原始文章或SR的临床实践指南(CPG)。这项工作的方法和结果已经发表。在本次调查中,我们旨在更好地描述随机对照试验在临床实践指南中的影响。因此,我们确定了被引用的临床实践指南中原始文章和系统评价的所有引用,并将其分为有影响力和无影响力两类。这使我们能够计算出一项试验对指南影响的估计值。此外,我们估计了指南影响时间,定义为在临床实践指南中出现直接和间接有影响力引用的时间。直接是指一项试验的出版物在临床实践指南的正文部分被引用。间接是指该出版物被引用并包含在系统评价的结果中,且该系统评价在临床实践指南的正文部分被引用。我们还使用多变量负二项回归研究了预先定义的研究特征在多大程度上影响指南影响,以及使用多变量Cox比例风险回归研究了对指南影响时间的影响。
总体而言,22%的随机对照试验对临床实践指南产生了影响。对于国际行业资助的试验,只有15%的试验对临床实践指南有影响。总体而言,在405项相关指南中,331项受到了影响。规模较大的试验与临床实践指南中更多有影响力的正文引用以及更早的指南影响时间相关,而国际行业资助的试验对临床实践指南的影响较小且指南影响时间较长。德国政府机构资助的研究者发起的试验对临床实践指南的影响与德国行业资助的试验或国际研究者发起的试验及行业资助的试验相当。
本研究表明,先前确定与临床实践指南相关的大量试验对这些临床实践指南产生了影响(85%)。国际行业资助的试验似乎对临床实践指南的影响较小,而且其中影响临床实践指南的试验更少。