随机临床试验的可信度危机

IF 1.6 Q4 REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY Middle East Fertility Society Journal Pub Date : 2024-01-02 DOI:10.1186/s43043-023-00161-7
Furqan A. Butt, Mohammad Fawzy, Bassel H. Al Wattar, Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas, Khalid S. Khan, Yacoub Khalaf
{"title":"随机临床试验的可信度危机","authors":"Furqan A. Butt, Mohammad Fawzy, Bassel H. Al Wattar, Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas, Khalid S. Khan, Yacoub Khalaf","doi":"10.1186/s43043-023-00161-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The rising number of retracted randomised clinical trials (RCTs) is a concern over their trustworthiness. In today's digital landscape electronic observational data is easily accessible for research purposes. This emerging perspective, in tandem with the growing scrutiny of RCT credibility, may steer some researchers towards favouring non-randomized studies. It is crucial to emphasize the ongoing need for robust RCTs, shedding light on the areas within trial design that require enhancements and addressing existing gaps in trial execution. Evidence-based medicine pivots on the nexus between empirical medical research and the theoretical and applied facets of clinical care. Healthcare systems regularly amass patient data, creating a vast reservoir of information. This facilitates large-scale observational studies, which may appear as potential substitutes for RCTs. These large-scale studies inherently possess biases that place them a notch below randomized evidence. Honest errors, data manipulation, lapses in professionalism, and methodological shortcomings tarnish the integrity of RCTs, compromising trust in trials. Research institutions, funding agencies, journal editors and other stakeholders have the responsibility to establish robust frameworks to prevent both deliberate and inadvertent mishandling of RCT design, conduct and analysis. Systematic reviews that collate robust RCTs are invaluable. They amalgamate superior evidence instrumental in improving patient outcomes via informed health policy decisions. For systematic reviews to continue to retain trust, validated integrity assessment tools must be developed and routinely applied. This way it will be possible to prevent false or untrustworthy research from becoming part of the recommendations based on the evidence. High-quality RCTs and their systematic reviews play a crucial role in acquiring valid and reliable evidence that is instrumental in improving patient outcomes. They provide vital information on healthcare effectiveness, and their trustworthiness is key to evidence-based medicine.","PeriodicalId":18532,"journal":{"name":"Middle East Fertility Society Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The randomized clinical trial trustworthiness crisis\",\"authors\":\"Furqan A. Butt, Mohammad Fawzy, Bassel H. Al Wattar, Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas, Khalid S. Khan, Yacoub Khalaf\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s43043-023-00161-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The rising number of retracted randomised clinical trials (RCTs) is a concern over their trustworthiness. In today's digital landscape electronic observational data is easily accessible for research purposes. This emerging perspective, in tandem with the growing scrutiny of RCT credibility, may steer some researchers towards favouring non-randomized studies. It is crucial to emphasize the ongoing need for robust RCTs, shedding light on the areas within trial design that require enhancements and addressing existing gaps in trial execution. Evidence-based medicine pivots on the nexus between empirical medical research and the theoretical and applied facets of clinical care. Healthcare systems regularly amass patient data, creating a vast reservoir of information. This facilitates large-scale observational studies, which may appear as potential substitutes for RCTs. These large-scale studies inherently possess biases that place them a notch below randomized evidence. Honest errors, data manipulation, lapses in professionalism, and methodological shortcomings tarnish the integrity of RCTs, compromising trust in trials. Research institutions, funding agencies, journal editors and other stakeholders have the responsibility to establish robust frameworks to prevent both deliberate and inadvertent mishandling of RCT design, conduct and analysis. Systematic reviews that collate robust RCTs are invaluable. They amalgamate superior evidence instrumental in improving patient outcomes via informed health policy decisions. For systematic reviews to continue to retain trust, validated integrity assessment tools must be developed and routinely applied. This way it will be possible to prevent false or untrustworthy research from becoming part of the recommendations based on the evidence. High-quality RCTs and their systematic reviews play a crucial role in acquiring valid and reliable evidence that is instrumental in improving patient outcomes. They provide vital information on healthcare effectiveness, and their trustworthiness is key to evidence-based medicine.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Middle East Fertility Society Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Middle East Fertility Society Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43043-023-00161-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Middle East Fertility Society Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43043-023-00161-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

被撤回的随机临床试验(RCT)数量不断增加,令人担忧其可信度。在当今的数字化时代,电子观察数据很容易被用于研究目的。这种新出现的观点,加上对随机临床试验可信度日益严格的审查,可能会引导一些研究人员倾向于非随机研究。我们必须强调目前对可靠的 RCT 的需求,揭示试验设计中需要改进的领域,并解决试验执行中的现有差距。循证医学的关键在于实证医学研究与临床护理的理论和应用之间的联系。医疗保健系统定期收集患者数据,形成了一个庞大的信息库。这为大规模观察性研究提供了便利,而观察性研究可能会成为研究性临床试验的潜在替代品。这些大规模研究本身存在偏差,比随机证据低一个等级。诚实错误、数据篡改、专业失误和方法缺陷玷污了 RCT 的诚信,损害了人们对试验的信任。研究机构、资助机构、期刊编辑和其他利益相关者有责任建立健全的框架,防止在 RCT 设计、实施和分析过程中出现有意或无意的不当处理。整理可靠的 RCT 的系统性综述非常宝贵。它们汇集了有助于通过明智的卫生政策决策改善患者治疗效果的优质证据。要想让系统性综述继续获得信任,就必须开发并常规应用经过验证的完整性评估工具。这样才能防止虚假或不可信的研究成为基于证据的建议的一部分。高质量的 RCT 及其系统性综述在获取有效、可靠的证据方面发挥着至关重要的作用,而这些证据对于改善患者的治疗效果至关重要。它们提供了有关医疗保健有效性的重要信息,其可信度是循证医学的关键。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The randomized clinical trial trustworthiness crisis
The rising number of retracted randomised clinical trials (RCTs) is a concern over their trustworthiness. In today's digital landscape electronic observational data is easily accessible for research purposes. This emerging perspective, in tandem with the growing scrutiny of RCT credibility, may steer some researchers towards favouring non-randomized studies. It is crucial to emphasize the ongoing need for robust RCTs, shedding light on the areas within trial design that require enhancements and addressing existing gaps in trial execution. Evidence-based medicine pivots on the nexus between empirical medical research and the theoretical and applied facets of clinical care. Healthcare systems regularly amass patient data, creating a vast reservoir of information. This facilitates large-scale observational studies, which may appear as potential substitutes for RCTs. These large-scale studies inherently possess biases that place them a notch below randomized evidence. Honest errors, data manipulation, lapses in professionalism, and methodological shortcomings tarnish the integrity of RCTs, compromising trust in trials. Research institutions, funding agencies, journal editors and other stakeholders have the responsibility to establish robust frameworks to prevent both deliberate and inadvertent mishandling of RCT design, conduct and analysis. Systematic reviews that collate robust RCTs are invaluable. They amalgamate superior evidence instrumental in improving patient outcomes via informed health policy decisions. For systematic reviews to continue to retain trust, validated integrity assessment tools must be developed and routinely applied. This way it will be possible to prevent false or untrustworthy research from becoming part of the recommendations based on the evidence. High-quality RCTs and their systematic reviews play a crucial role in acquiring valid and reliable evidence that is instrumental in improving patient outcomes. They provide vital information on healthcare effectiveness, and their trustworthiness is key to evidence-based medicine.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
审稿时长
45 weeks
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the effectiveness and adverse effects of oral versus transdermal estradiol for endometrial preparation in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial The effect of vitamin D on the hormonal profile of women with polycystic ovarian syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis Semen in the time of COVID-19: a narrative review of current evidence and implications for fertility and reproductive health From uncertain to certain—how to proceed with variants of uncertain significance Stigma and depression among obese infertile women: a cross-sectional study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1