切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

第五届中国出版政府奖音像电子网络出版物奖提名奖

中国科技核心期刊

中国科学引文数据库(CSCD)来源期刊

中华重症医学电子杂志 ›› 2020, Vol. 06 ›› Issue (04) : 365 -369. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-1537.2020.04.003

所属专题: 重症医学 文献

专家论坛

现今临床研究方法学对随机对照试验结果的影响
朱熠冰1, 席修明2,()   
  1. 1. 100037 北京,中国医学科学院阜外医院医学统计部
    2. 100038 北京,首都医科大学附属复兴医院重症医学科
  • 收稿日期:2020-10-10 出版日期:2020-11-28
  • 通信作者: 席修明

The impact of current clinical research methodology on randomized controlled studies

Yibing Zhu1, Xiuming Xi2,()   

  1. 1. Medical Research and Biometrics Center, National Center for Cardiovascular Disease, Fuwai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100037, China
    2. Capital Medical University, Fuxing Hospital, Beijing 100038, China
  • Received:2020-10-10 Published:2020-11-28
  • Corresponding author: Xiuming Xi
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Xi Xiuming, Email:
引用本文:

朱熠冰, 席修明. 现今临床研究方法学对随机对照试验结果的影响[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2020, 06(04): 365-369.

Yibing Zhu, Xiuming Xi. The impact of current clinical research methodology on randomized controlled studies[J]. Chinese Journal of Critical Care & Intensive Care Medicine(Electronic Edition), 2020, 06(04): 365-369.

随机对照试验是用于确证干预措施能否改善临床结局的金标准。但是诸多研究方法学因素,都会对试验结果产生影响。本文将介绍荟萃流行病学,一种系统性探索研究方法对结果影响的研究,并综述样本量,分配隐藏和盲法,研究基金来源,和研究注册对试验结果影响的荟萃流行病学研究。并介绍适应性试验设计,一种更高效并有助于识别优效性干预措施的方法学。

Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard that used to confirm whether interventions can improve clinical outcomes. However, many methodology factors can affect the results. We introduce a meta-epidemiology that systematically explores the impact of research methodology on results and review the meta-epidemiological studies exploring the effects of sample size, allocation concealment and blinding, sources of research funding, and registration on trial results in this paper. We also introduce the adaptive trial design, a methodology that makes the trial more efficient and more likely to identify effective interventions.

1
Harhay MO, Casey JD, Clement M, et al. Contemporary strategies to improve clinical trial design for critical care research: insights from the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists Workshop [J]. Intensive Care Med, 2020, 46(5): 930-942.
2
Santacruz CA, Pereira AJ, Celis E, et al. Which multicenter randomized controlled trials in critical care medicine have shown reducedmortality? A systematic review [J]. Crit Care Med, 2019, 47(12): 1680-1691.
3
Tonelli AR, Zein J, Adams J, et al. Effects of interventions onsurvival in acute respiratory distress syndrome: an umbrella review of 159 published randomized trials and 29 meta-analyses [J]. Intensive Care Med, 2014, 40(6): 769-787.
4
Opal SM, Dellinger RP, Vincent JL, et al. The nextgeneration of sepsis clinical trial designs: what is next after the demise ofrecombinant human activated protein C? [J]. Crit Care Med, 2014, 42(7): 1714-1721.
5
Naylor CD. Meta-analysis and the meta-epidemiology of clinical research [J]. BMJ, 1997, 315(7109): 617-619.
6
Sterne JA, Jüni P, Schulz KF, et al. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research [J]. Stat Med, 2002, 21(11): 1513-1524.
7
Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study [J]. BMJ, 2008, 336(7644): 601-605.
8
Bae JM. Meta-epidemiology [J]. Epidemiol Health, 2014, 36: e2014019.
9
Zhang W. Meta-epidemiology: building the bridge from research evidence to clinical practice [J]. Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 2010, 18 Suppl 2: S1.
10
Murad MH, Wang Z. Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research [J]. Evid Based Med, 2017, 22(4): 139-142.
11
Sterne JA, Egger M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis [J]. J Clin Epidemiol, 2001, 54(10): 1046-1055.
12
Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, et al. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles [J]. JAMA, 2004, 291(20): 2457-2465.
13
Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews [J]. BMJ, 2010, 340: c365.
14
Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses [J]. Ann Intern Med, 2001, 135(11): 982-989.
15
Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, et al. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a refection of treatmenteffect or adverse events? [J]. JAMA, 2003, 290(7): 921-928.
16
Zhang Z, Xu X, Ni H. Small studies may overestimate the effect sizes in critical care meta-analyses: a meta-epidemiological study [J]. Crit Care, 2013, 17(1): R2.
17
Nüesch E, Trelle S, Reichenbach S, et al. Small study effects in meta-analyses of osteoarthritis trials: meta-epidemiological study [J]. BMJ, 2010, 341: c3515.
18
Dechartres A, Trinquart L, Boutron I, et al. Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study [J]. BMJ, 2013, 346: f2304.
19
Ranieri VM, Thompson BT, Barie PS, et al;Prowess Shock Study Group. Drotrecogin alfa (activated) in adults withseptic shock [J]. N Engl J Med, 2012, 366(22): 2055-2064.
20
Semler MW, Self WH, Wanderer JP, et al; SMART Investigators, Pragmatic Critical Care Research Group. Balancedcrystalloids versus saline in critically ill adults [J]. N Engl J Med, 2018, 378(9): 829-839.
21
Schulz KF. Assessing allocation concealment and blinding in randomized controlled trials: why bother? [J]. ACP J Club, 2000, 132(2): A11-A12.
22
Miller LE, Stewart ME. The blind leading the blind: use and misuse of blinding in randomized controlled trials [J]. Contemp Clin Trials, 2011, 32(2): 240-243.
23
Balk EM, Bonis PA, Moskowitz H, et al. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials [J]. JAMA, 2002, 287(22): 2973-2982.
24
Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study [J]. BMJ, 2008, 336(7644): 601-605.
25
Odgaard-Jensen J, Vist GE, Timmer A, et al. Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials [J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2011(4), 4: MR000012.
26
Hróbjartsson A, Emanuelsson F, Skou Thomsen AS, et al. Bias due to lack of patient blinding in clinical trials. A systematic review of trials randomizing patients to blind and nonblind sub-studies [J]. Int J Epidemiol, 2014, 43(4): 1272-1283.
27
Ghimire S, Kyung E, Kang W, et al. Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals [J]. Trials, 2012, 13: 77.
28
Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, et al. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles [J]. JAMA, 2004, 291(20): 2457-2465.
29
DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors[J]. JAMA, 2004, 292(11): 1363-1364.
30
Dickersin K, Rennie D. The evolution of trial registries and their use to assess the clinical trial enterprise [J]. JAMA, 2012, 307(17): 1861-1864.
31
Mathieu S, Boutron I, Moher D, et al. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials [J]. JAMA, 2009, 302(9): 977-984.
32
Dechartres A, Ravaud P, Atal I, et al. Association between trial registration and treatment effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study [J]. BMC Med, 2016, 14(1): 100.
33
Emdin C, Odutayo A, Hsiao A, et al. Association of cardiovascular trial registration with positive study findings: Epidemiological Study of Randomized Trials (ESORT) [J]. JAMA Intern Med, 2015, 175(2): 304-307.
34
Dechartres A, Trinquart L, Faber T, et al. Empirical evaluation of which trial characteristics are associated with treatment effect estimates [J]. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 77: 24-37.
35
Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, et al. Industry sponsorship and research outcome: systematic review with meta-analysis [J]. Intensive Care Med, 2018, 44(10): 1603-1612.
36
Moses H 3rd, Matheson DH, Cairns-Smith S, et al. The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons [J]. JAMA, 2015, 313(2): 174-189.
37
Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, et al. Industry sponsorship and research outcome [J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2012, 12: MR000033.
38
Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, et al. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? [J]. JAMA, 2003, 290(7): 921-928.
39
Rosefsky JB. Results of clinical trials sponsored by for-profit vsnonprofit entities [J]. JAMA, 2003, 290(23): 3070-3071.
40
Bero L, Oostvogel F, Bacchetti P, et al. Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug-drug comparisons: why some statinsappear more efficacious than others [J]. PLoS Med, 2007, 4(6): e184.
41
Bein T, Bienvenu OJ, Hopkins RO. Focus on long-term cognitive, psychological and physical impairments after critical illness[J]. Intensive Care Med, 2019, 45(10): 1466-1468.
42
Dinglas VD, Faraone LN, Needham DM. Understanding patient-important outcomes after critical illness: a synthesis of recent qualitative, empirical, and consensus-related studies [J]. Curr Opin Crit Care, 2018, 24(5): 401-409.
43
van Werkhoven CH, Harbarth S, Bonten MJM. Adaptive designs inclinical trials in critically ill patients: principles, advantages and pitfalls [J]. Intensive Care Med, 2019, 45(5): 678-682.
44
Welte T, Dellinger RP, Ebelt H, et al. Efficacy and safety of trimodulin, a novel polyclonal antibody preparation, in patients with severecommunity-acquired pneumonia: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter, phase Ⅱ trial (CIGMA study) [J]. Intensive Care Med, 2018, 44(4): 438-448.
45
Bothwell LE, Avorn J, Khan NF, et al. Adaptive designclinical trials: a review of the literature and Clinical Trials. gov [J]. BMJ Open, 2018, 8(2): e018320.
46
Bhatt DL, Mehta C. Adaptive designs for clinical trials [J]. N Engl J Med, 2016, 375(1): 65-74.
[1] 杨薇, 郝霞, 朱冬振, 张劲柏, 田雪飞, 姚斌. 中医药治疗烧烫伤患者临床效果的荟萃分析[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2023, 18(05): 419-426.
[2] 王海燕, 张冬雪, 粟申平, 姜彤. 光动力联合龈下喷砂疗法对种植体周围炎龈沟液菌群分布改变的疗效[J]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(06): 391-403.
[3] 江文诗, 何湘湘. 全球及我国器官捐献发展特征分析与学科建设[J]. 中华移植杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 280-286.
[4] 龚泽众, 朱万骥, 任延英, 徐朝辉, 曲慧, Hyok Ju Ri, 张帆, 邵帅, 陈鑫. 预防性放置补片对预防造口旁疝疗效的Meta分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(01): 96-104.
[5] 薛小军, 锜和强, 屈振南, 钟伟, 李冉冉, 陈宇凡, 周松. 儿童腹股沟疝腹腔镜与开放手术效果与安全性的Meta分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(05): 587-594.
[6] 郭亮, 王彦, 徐瑜, 白莉, 徐智. 课程思政教育融入呼吸与危重症医学专科医师规范化培训[J]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2023, 16(02): 299-300.
[7] 徐静媛, 谢波, 邱海波, 杨毅. 《重症医学》课程思政建设的探索与实践[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2023, 09(03): 265-268.
[8] 崔妍, 谢克亮. 重症医学教学中融入思政与人文教育的思考与实践[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2023, 09(02): 205-209.
[9] 刁世童, 王伊帆, 董润, 彭劲民, 何淑华, 翁利, 杜斌. eSOFA,qSOFA,SIRS对于脓毒症患者预后预测价值的比较:一项基于非ICU住院患者的前瞻性队列研究[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2023, 09(02): 143-148.
[10] 刘帅, 徐珊珊, 王淑雅, 侯梦雪, 苗明月, 田莹, 张琳琳, 周建新. 成人重症患者镇痛镇静诊疗流程[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2023, 09(02): 135-142.
[11] 胡小芸, 姜利, 杜斌. 重症医学医师的毕业后教育—中国医师协会重症医学医师分会住培与专培工作[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2022, 08(02): 101-102.
[12] 杨飞, 王少华, 陈壮, 石辉, 隆云. 体外膜肺氧合技术治疗心功能不全的临床评估与荟萃分析[J]. 中华重症医学电子杂志, 2021, 07(04): 347-354.
[13] 李琪, 黄钟莹, 袁平, 关振鹏. 基于某三级医院的ICU多重耐药菌医院感染影响因素的分析[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(07): 777-782.
[14] 王朝安, 许军峰, 贺军. 安慰针临床随机对照试验研究现状[J]. 中华针灸电子杂志, 2022, 11(04): 162-164.
[15] 孙宏源, 刘玥. 针刺联合吞咽康复训练预防卒中相关性肺炎的Meta分析[J]. 中华针灸电子杂志, 2022, 11(02): 81-86.
阅读次数
全文


摘要