ANZ journal of surgery · 2021
Has the reporting of patient-important outcomes improved in surgical trials? A meta-epidemiological study.
СтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Menon Rahul, Wang Andy, Chamberlain Kira, Harris Laura, Li Tom, Harris Ian A, Naylor Justine, Pinheiro Marina B, Adie Sam
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials should ideally use patient-important outcomes to ensure their results are clinically relevant. We aimed to determine if the proportion of patient-important outcomes in surgical trials has changed over the last decade, and to determine whether patient-important outcomes are more likely to be specified as primary outcomes.
METHODS: The 350 most recent randomized controlled trials examining surgical interventions on humans and published in English were included. Outcomes were classified as patient-important, surrogate or laboratory using standardized definitions, along with either primary, secondary or unspecified. Mean proportions were calculated across all trials and a chi-squared test was used to detect the difference between time periods. Contingency tables were populated with each trial's outcomes, characterizing whether each outcome was patient-important or not, and whether it was specified as primary or secondary. Odds ratios were then combined in a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate a pooled odds ratio.
RESULTS: A total of 64% of all outcomes were patient-important. The mean (standard deviation) proportion of patient-important outcomes per trial was 66% (31.4), which significantly increased over the last decade, from 60% (31.6) in 2009. The mean proportion of primary outcomes which were patient-important increased from 64% (46.0) in 2009 to 77% (40.6) in 2019. Patient-important outcomes were not significantly associated with being a primary outcome and this did not change significantly over the decade.
CONCLUSION: Patient-important outcomes are still poorly represented as primary outcomes. The ongoing impact of updated reporting guidelines may improve the reporting of patient-important outcomes in surgical trials.
METHODS: The 350 most recent randomized controlled trials examining surgical interventions on humans and published in English were included. Outcomes were classified as patient-important, surrogate or laboratory using standardized definitions, along with either primary, secondary or unspecified. Mean proportions were calculated across all trials and a chi-squared test was used to detect the difference between time periods. Contingency tables were populated with each trial's outcomes, characterizing whether each outcome was patient-important or not, and whether it was specified as primary or secondary. Odds ratios were then combined in a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate a pooled odds ratio.
RESULTS: A total of 64% of all outcomes were patient-important. The mean (standard deviation) proportion of patient-important outcomes per trial was 66% (31.4), which significantly increased over the last decade, from 60% (31.6) in 2009. The mean proportion of primary outcomes which were patient-important increased from 64% (46.0) in 2009 to 77% (40.6) in 2019. Patient-important outcomes were not significantly associated with being a primary outcome and this did not change significantly over the decade.
CONCLUSION: Patient-important outcomes are still poorly represented as primary outcomes. The ongoing impact of updated reporting guidelines may improve the reporting of patient-important outcomes in surgical trials.