• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

研究者发起的试验与行业资助的试验——随机对照试验在临床实践指南中的可见性和相关性(IMPACT)

Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials - visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT).

作者信息

Hecht Manuel, Blümle Anette, Binder Harald, Schumacher Martin, Binder Nadine

机构信息

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.

出版信息

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025 Mar 27;25(1):80. doi: 10.1186/s12874-025-02535-z.

DOI:10.1186/s12874-025-02535-z
PMID:40140983
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11948659/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

摘要

背景

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。

方法

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。

结果

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。

结论

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。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b1cc/11948659/c5efc7ce777f/12874_2025_2535_Fig5_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b1cc/11948659/0d43ebe6db6a/12874_2025_2535_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b1cc/11948659/850032413c9a/12874_2025_2535_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b1cc/11948659/549b183acfc8/12874_2025_2535_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b1cc/11948659/8acfeef1d90f/12874_2025_2535_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b1cc/11948659/c5efc7ce777f/12874_2025_2535_Fig5_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b1cc/11948659/0d43ebe6db6a/12874_2025_2535_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b1cc/11948659/850032413c9a/12874_2025_2535_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b1cc/11948659/549b183acfc8/12874_2025_2535_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b1cc/11948659/8acfeef1d90f/12874_2025_2535_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b1cc/11948659/c5efc7ce777f/12874_2025_2535_Fig5_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials - visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT).研究者发起的试验与行业资助的试验——随机对照试验在临床实践指南中的可见性和相关性(IMPACT)
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025 Mar 27;25(1):80. doi: 10.1186/s12874-025-02535-z.
2
Investigator initiated trials versus industry sponsored trials - translation of randomized controlled trials into clinical practice (IMPACT).研究者发起的试验与工业界赞助的试验——将随机对照试验转化为临床实践(IMPACT)。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Aug 31;21(1):182. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01359-x.
3
Impact of investigator initiated trials and industry sponsored trials on medical practice (IMPACT): rationale and study design.研究者发起的试验和工业界资助的试验对医疗实践的影响(IMPACT):原理和研究设计。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Oct 2;20(1):246. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01125-5.
4
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
5
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
6
Comparison of Industry-Sponsored Trials (IST) and Investigator-Initiated Trials (IIT) in Advanced Genitourinary Cancers in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and France.美国、加拿大、英国和法国晚期泌尿生殖系统癌症中行业赞助试验(IST)与研究者发起试验(IIT)的比较
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2024 Dec;22(6):102210. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2024.102210. Epub 2024 Aug 22.
7
Retracted randomized controlled trials were cited and not corrected in systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines.被撤回的随机对照试验在系统评价和临床实践指南中被引用且未得到纠正。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Oct;150:90-97. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.06.015. Epub 2022 Jun 30.
8
Guideline-based quality indicators-a systematic comparison of German and international clinical practice guidelines.基于指南的质量指标——德国与国际临床实践指南的系统比较。
Implement Sci. 2019 Jul 9;14(1):71. doi: 10.1186/s13012-019-0918-y.
9
Guideline-based quality indicators-a systematic comparison of German and international clinical practice guidelines: protocol for a systematic review.基于指南的质量指标——德国与国际临床实践指南的系统比较:系统评价方案。
Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 12;7(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0669-2.
10
Nonregistration, discontinuation, and nonpublication of randomized trials: A repeated metaresearch analysis.未注册、中止和不发表随机试验:一项重复的荟萃分析研究。
PLoS Med. 2022 Apr 27;19(4):e1003980. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003980. eCollection 2022 Apr.

本文引用的文献

1
Time to publication for results of clinical trials.临床试验结果的发表时间。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Nov 27;11(11):MR000011. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000011.pub3.
2
Nonregistration, discontinuation, and nonpublication of randomized trials: A repeated metaresearch analysis.未注册、中止和不发表随机试验:一项重复的荟萃分析研究。
PLoS Med. 2022 Apr 27;19(4):e1003980. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003980. eCollection 2022 Apr.
3
Activation of Investigator-Initiated Clinical Trials with a Pharmaceutical for Cancer Patients before and after Post-Millennial Changes of Regulations in Germany and Europe.
在德国和欧洲千禧年后法规变更前后,一种用于癌症患者的药物的研究者发起的临床试验的启动情况。
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Mar 3;14(5):1308. doi: 10.3390/cancers14051308.
4
Investigator initiated trials versus industry sponsored trials - translation of randomized controlled trials into clinical practice (IMPACT).研究者发起的试验与工业界赞助的试验——将随机对照试验转化为临床实践(IMPACT)。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Aug 31;21(1):182. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01359-x.
5
Impact of investigator initiated trials and industry sponsored trials on medical practice (IMPACT): rationale and study design.研究者发起的试验和工业界资助的试验对医疗实践的影响(IMPACT):原理和研究设计。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Oct 2;20(1):246. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01125-5.
6
Systematic review on costs and resource use of randomized clinical trials shows a lack of transparent and comprehensive data.系统评价随机临床试验的成本和资源利用情况显示出缺乏透明和全面的数据。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Apr;96:1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.018. Epub 2017 Dec 27.
7
Evaluating Guidelines: A Review of Key Quality Criteria.评估指南:关键质量标准综述
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015 Jul 6;112(27-28):471-8. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2015.0471.
8
The use of count data models in biomedical informatics evaluation research.在生物医学信息学评估研究中使用计数数据模型。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 Jan-Feb;19(1):39-44. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000256. Epub 2011 Jun 29.
9
AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care.《AGREE II:推进卫生保健领域的指南制定、报告与评估》
CMAJ. 2010 Dec 14;182(18):E839-42. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.090449. Epub 2010 Jul 5.
10
Beyond citation analysis: a model for assessment of research impact.超越引文分析:一种评估研究影响力的模型。
J Med Libr Assoc. 2010 Jan;98(1):17-23. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.98.1.008.