针灸随机临床试验中盲法对估计治疗效果的影响:一项荟萃流行病学研究。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine Pub Date : 2024-03-11 DOI:10.1111/jebm.12589
Youlin Long, Na Zhang, Xinyao Wang, Ruixian Tang, Qiong Guo, Jin Huang, Liang Du
{"title":"针灸随机临床试验中盲法对估计治疗效果的影响:一项荟萃流行病学研究。","authors":"Youlin Long,&nbsp;Na Zhang,&nbsp;Xinyao Wang,&nbsp;Ruixian Tang,&nbsp;Qiong Guo,&nbsp;Jin Huang,&nbsp;Liang Du","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12589","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate the sole impact of blinding patients and outcome assessors in acupuncture randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on treatment effects while considering the type of outcome measures.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We searched databases for the meta-analyses on acupuncture with both blinded and non-blinded RCTs. Mixed-effects meta-regression models estimated the average ratio of odds ratios (ROR) and differences in standardized mean differences (dSMD) for non-blinded RCTs versus blinded mixed-effects meta-regression model.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The study included 96 meta-analyses (1012 trials). The average ROR for lack of patient blinding was 1.08 (95% confidence intervals 0.79–1.49) in 18 meta-analyses with binary patient-reported outcomes. The average ROR for lack of outcome assessor blinding was 0.98 (0.77–1.24) in 43 meta-analyses with binary subjective outcomes. The average dSMD was −0.38 (−0.96 to 0.20) in 10 meta-analyses with continuous patient-reported outcomes. The average dSMD was −0.13 (−0.45 to 0.18) in 25 meta-analyses with continuous subjective outcomes. The results of the subgroup analysis were consistent with the primary analysis findings.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Blinding of participants and outcome assessors does not significantly influence acupuncture treatment efficacy. It underscores the practical difficulties of blinding in acupuncture RCTs and the necessity to distinguish between trials with and without successful blinding to understand treatment expectations’ effects. Enhancing blinding procedures’ quality and assessment in future research is crucial for improving RCTs’ internal validity and reliability.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomized clinical trials on acupuncture: A meta-epidemiological study\",\"authors\":\"Youlin Long,&nbsp;Na Zhang,&nbsp;Xinyao Wang,&nbsp;Ruixian Tang,&nbsp;Qiong Guo,&nbsp;Jin Huang,&nbsp;Liang Du\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jebm.12589\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>To evaluate the sole impact of blinding patients and outcome assessors in acupuncture randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on treatment effects while considering the type of outcome measures.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We searched databases for the meta-analyses on acupuncture with both blinded and non-blinded RCTs. Mixed-effects meta-regression models estimated the average ratio of odds ratios (ROR) and differences in standardized mean differences (dSMD) for non-blinded RCTs versus blinded mixed-effects meta-regression model.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The study included 96 meta-analyses (1012 trials). The average ROR for lack of patient blinding was 1.08 (95% confidence intervals 0.79–1.49) in 18 meta-analyses with binary patient-reported outcomes. The average ROR for lack of outcome assessor blinding was 0.98 (0.77–1.24) in 43 meta-analyses with binary subjective outcomes. The average dSMD was −0.38 (−0.96 to 0.20) in 10 meta-analyses with continuous patient-reported outcomes. The average dSMD was −0.13 (−0.45 to 0.18) in 25 meta-analyses with continuous subjective outcomes. The results of the subgroup analysis were consistent with the primary analysis findings.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Blinding of participants and outcome assessors does not significantly influence acupuncture treatment efficacy. It underscores the practical difficulties of blinding in acupuncture RCTs and the necessity to distinguish between trials with and without successful blinding to understand treatment expectations’ effects. Enhancing blinding procedures’ quality and assessment in future research is crucial for improving RCTs’ internal validity and reliability.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16090,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jebm.12589\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jebm.12589","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估针灸随机对照试验(RCT)中对患者和结果评估者实施盲法对治疗效果的影响:评估在针灸随机对照试验(RCT)中对患者和结果评估者实施盲法对治疗效果的唯一影响,同时考虑结果测量的类型:方法:我们检索了数据库中有关针灸的荟萃分析,包括盲法和非盲法随机对照试验。混合效应元回归模型估算了非盲法 RCT 与盲法混合效应元回归模型的平均几率比(ROR)和标准化平均差(dSMD):研究包括 96 项元分析(1012 项试验)。在18项具有二元患者报告结果的荟萃分析中,缺乏患者盲法的平均ROR为1.08(95%置信区间为0.79-1.49)。在 43 项具有二元主观结果的荟萃分析中,缺乏结果评估者盲法的平均 ROR 为 0.98(0.77-1.24)。在 10 项具有连续性患者报告结果的荟萃分析中,dSMD 的平均值为-0.38(-0.96 至 0.20)。在 25 项具有连续主观结果的荟萃分析中,平均 dSMD 为-0.13(-0.45 至 0.18)。亚组分析结果与主要分析结果一致:结论:对参与者和结果评估者进行盲法并不会显著影响针灸疗效。这凸显了在针灸临床试验中进行盲法操作的实际困难,以及区分成功盲法和未成功盲法试验以了解治疗预期效果的必要性。在未来的研究中,提高盲法程序的质量和评估对于改善RCT的内部效度和信度至关重要。
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 impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomized clinical trials on acupuncture: A meta-epidemiological study

Objective

To evaluate the sole impact of blinding patients and outcome assessors in acupuncture randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on treatment effects while considering the type of outcome measures.

Methods

We searched databases for the meta-analyses on acupuncture with both blinded and non-blinded RCTs. Mixed-effects meta-regression models estimated the average ratio of odds ratios (ROR) and differences in standardized mean differences (dSMD) for non-blinded RCTs versus blinded mixed-effects meta-regression model.

Results

The study included 96 meta-analyses (1012 trials). The average ROR for lack of patient blinding was 1.08 (95% confidence intervals 0.79–1.49) in 18 meta-analyses with binary patient-reported outcomes. The average ROR for lack of outcome assessor blinding was 0.98 (0.77–1.24) in 43 meta-analyses with binary subjective outcomes. The average dSMD was −0.38 (−0.96 to 0.20) in 10 meta-analyses with continuous patient-reported outcomes. The average dSMD was −0.13 (−0.45 to 0.18) in 25 meta-analyses with continuous subjective outcomes. The results of the subgroup analysis were consistent with the primary analysis findings.

Conclusions

Blinding of participants and outcome assessors does not significantly influence acupuncture treatment efficacy. It underscores the practical difficulties of blinding in acupuncture RCTs and the necessity to distinguish between trials with and without successful blinding to understand treatment expectations’ effects. Enhancing blinding procedures’ quality and assessment in future research is crucial for improving RCTs’ internal validity and reliability.

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
Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine
Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
1.40%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine (EMB) is an esteemed international healthcare and medical decision-making journal, dedicated to publishing groundbreaking research outcomes in evidence-based decision-making, research, practice, and education. Serving as the official English-language journal of the Cochrane China Centre and West China Hospital of Sichuan University, we eagerly welcome editorials, commentaries, and systematic reviews encompassing various topics such as clinical trials, policy, drug and patient safety, education, and knowledge translation.
期刊最新文献
Evaluation and management of knee osteoarthritis. Issue Information Diagnosis and management of inflammatory bowel disease The Guidelines for use and promotion of low sodium salt in China The ethics of some placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials
×
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
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