Aronson J K, Onakpoya I J
Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Department for Continuing Education University of Oxford, Rewley House, 1 Wellington Square, Oxford, OX1 2JA, UK.
Trials. 2025 May 1;26(1):145. doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-08671-z.
We define clinical study reports (CSRs) as standardized full reports of the protocols, results, and other pertinent details of clinical studies that are typically submitted by pharmaceutical companies to regulatory authorities when they apply for marketing authorization.
In this systematic review we searched various databases (Clarivate Web of Science, EMBASE and Ovid Medline, Google Scholar, and PubMed) for publications containing the term "clinical study report/s", without restrictions.
In the first part of this review we discussed the history of CSRs, their contents and structure, definitions, and relevant terminology. In this second part we discuss the uses of CSRs, concentrating on the individual benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions, and thus the benefit to harm balance. We also discuss adherence to interventions, prepublication of protocols of clinical trials, and how CSRs are written, factors that can all affect estimation of the benefit-harm balance.
When clinical trial data from CSRs are compared with the data in published trial reports, the apparent benefits of pharmacological interventions are less impressive, and more information emerges about harms they can cause. Both of these effects change how the benefit-harm balance of a pharmacological intervention is estimated, generally making it less favourable than was otherwise thought. For more accurate assessment of the benefit-harm balance of an intervention, full, not abbreviated or synoptic, clinical study reports should continue to be made publicly available by regulatory authorities and manufacturers. Authorities that do not currently make them available should do so. CSRs should be introduced for assessment of surgical operations, therapeutic devices, and other non-pharmacological interventions in clinical trials.
我们将临床研究报告(CSR)定义为临床研究方案、结果及其他相关细节的标准化完整报告,制药公司在申请上市许可时通常会将其提交给监管机构。
在本系统评价中,我们检索了多个数据库(科睿唯安科学网、EMBASE、Ovid医学数据库、谷歌学术和PubMed),以查找包含“临床研究报告”一词的出版物,无任何限制。
在本评价的第一部分,我们讨论了临床研究报告的历史、内容与结构、定义及相关术语。在第二部分,我们讨论临床研究报告的用途,重点关注药物干预的个体益处和危害,以及由此产生的利弊平衡。我们还讨论了对干预措施的依从性、临床试验方案的预发表,以及临床研究报告的撰写方式,这些因素都会影响对利弊平衡的评估。
当将临床研究报告中的临床试验数据与已发表的试验报告中的数据进行比较时,药物干预的明显益处就不那么显著了,而且更多关于其可能造成危害的信息也会显现出来。这两种效应都会改变对药物干预利弊平衡的评估方式,总体上使其比原本认为的更不理想。为了更准确地评估一项干预措施的利弊平衡,监管机构和制造商应继续公开提供完整而非简略或概要的临床研究报告。目前尚未提供此类报告的机构应予以提供。临床研究报告应引入用于评估外科手术、治疗器械及临床试验中的其他非药物干预措施。