危重病医学随机临床试验的资格标准。

IF 10.5 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL JAMA Network Open Pub Date : 2025-01-02 DOI:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.54944
Alya Heirali, Kiyan Heybati, Jariya Sereeyotin, Faizan Khan, Christopher Yarnell, Karla Krewulak, Srinivas Murthy, Karen E A Burns, Robert Fowler, Kirsten Fiest, Sangeeta Mehta
{"title":"危重病医学随机临床试验的资格标准。","authors":"Alya Heirali, Kiyan Heybati, Jariya Sereeyotin, Faizan Khan, Christopher Yarnell, Karla Krewulak, Srinivas Murthy, Karen E A Burns, Robert Fowler, Kirsten Fiest, Sangeeta Mehta","doi":"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.54944","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Eligibility criteria for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are designed to select clinically relevant patient populations. However, not all eligibility criteria are strongly justified, potentially excluding marginalized groups, and limiting the generalizability of trial findings.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To summarize and evaluate the justification of exclusion criteria in published RCTs in critical care medicine.</p><p><strong>Evidence review: </strong>A systematic sampling review of parallel-group RCTs published in the top 5 general internal medicine journals by impact factor (The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, British Medical Journal, and Annals of Internal Medicine) between January 1, 2018, and February 23, 2023, was conducted. RCTs enrolling adults in intensive care units (ICUs) and RCTs enrolling critically ill patients who required life-sustaining interventions typically initiated in the ICU were included. All study exclusion criteria were categorized as either poorly justified, potentially justified, or strongly justified, adapting previously established criteria, independently and in duplicate.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>In total, 225 studies were identified, 75 of which were included. The median (IQR) number of exclusion criteria per trial was 19 (14-24), with 1455 total exclusion criteria. Common exclusion criteria were related to the risk of adverse reaction to interventions (302 criteria [20.8%]), followed by inability to obtain consent (120 criteria [8.2%]), and treatment limitation decisions (97 criteria [6.7%]). Most exclusion criteria were either strongly justified (1080 criteria [74.2%]) or potentially justified (297 criteria [20.4%]), whereas 5.4% (78 criteria) were poorly justified. Of the 78 poorly justified exclusion criteria, the most common were pregnancy (19 criteria [24.4%]), communication barriers (11 criteria [14.1%]), lactation (10 criteria [12.8%]), and lack of health insurance (10 criteria [12.8%]). Overall, 45 of 75 studies (60.0%) had at least 1 poorly justified exclusion criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Most exclusion criteria in critical care medicine RCTs were strongly justifiable. Across poorly justified criteria, the most common exclusions were pregnant or lactating persons, those with communication barriers, and individuals without health insurance. This highlights the need to carefully consider exclusion criteria when designing trials to minimize the inappropriate exclusion of participants and enhance generalizability.</p>","PeriodicalId":14694,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Network Open","volume":"8 1","pages":"e2454944"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11742542/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Eligibility Criteria of Randomized Clinical Trials in Critical Care Medicine.\",\"authors\":\"Alya Heirali, Kiyan Heybati, Jariya Sereeyotin, Faizan Khan, Christopher Yarnell, Karla Krewulak, Srinivas Murthy, Karen E A Burns, Robert Fowler, Kirsten Fiest, Sangeeta Mehta\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.54944\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Eligibility criteria for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are designed to select clinically relevant patient populations. However, not all eligibility criteria are strongly justified, potentially excluding marginalized groups, and limiting the generalizability of trial findings.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To summarize and evaluate the justification of exclusion criteria in published RCTs in critical care medicine.</p><p><strong>Evidence review: </strong>A systematic sampling review of parallel-group RCTs published in the top 5 general internal medicine journals by impact factor (The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, British Medical Journal, and Annals of Internal Medicine) between January 1, 2018, and February 23, 2023, was conducted. RCTs enrolling adults in intensive care units (ICUs) and RCTs enrolling critically ill patients who required life-sustaining interventions typically initiated in the ICU were included. All study exclusion criteria were categorized as either poorly justified, potentially justified, or strongly justified, adapting previously established criteria, independently and in duplicate.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>In total, 225 studies were identified, 75 of which were included. The median (IQR) number of exclusion criteria per trial was 19 (14-24), with 1455 total exclusion criteria. Common exclusion criteria were related to the risk of adverse reaction to interventions (302 criteria [20.8%]), followed by inability to obtain consent (120 criteria [8.2%]), and treatment limitation decisions (97 criteria [6.7%]). Most exclusion criteria were either strongly justified (1080 criteria [74.2%]) or potentially justified (297 criteria [20.4%]), whereas 5.4% (78 criteria) were poorly justified. Of the 78 poorly justified exclusion criteria, the most common were pregnancy (19 criteria [24.4%]), communication barriers (11 criteria [14.1%]), lactation (10 criteria [12.8%]), and lack of health insurance (10 criteria [12.8%]). Overall, 45 of 75 studies (60.0%) had at least 1 poorly justified exclusion criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Most exclusion criteria in critical care medicine RCTs were strongly justifiable. Across poorly justified criteria, the most common exclusions were pregnant or lactating persons, those with communication barriers, and individuals without health insurance. This highlights the need to carefully consider exclusion criteria when designing trials to minimize the inappropriate exclusion of participants and enhance generalizability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14694,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMA Network Open\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"e2454944\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11742542/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMA Network Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.54944\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"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":"JAMA Network Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.54944","RegionNum":1,"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

重要性:随机临床试验(rct)的资格标准旨在选择临床相关的患者群体。然而,并非所有的资格标准都是合理的,可能会排除边缘群体,并限制了试验结果的普遍性。目的:总结和评价已发表的危重医学随机对照试验排除标准的合理性。证据回顾:对2018年1月1日至2023年2月23日期间发表在影响因子排名前5位的普通内科期刊(《柳叶刀》、《新英格兰医学杂志》、《美国医学会杂志》、《英国医学杂志》和《内科医学年鉴》)上的平行组随机对照试验进行系统抽样回顾。纳入重症监护病房(ICU)成人的随机对照试验和纳入通常在ICU启动的需要维持生命干预的危重患者的随机对照试验。所有的研究排除标准被分类为不合理、潜在合理或强烈合理,采用先前建立的标准,独立和重复。研究结果:共纳入225项研究,其中75项被纳入。每个试验排除标准的中位数(IQR)为19(14-24),总排除标准为1455。常见的排除标准与干预不良反应风险相关(302项标准[20.8%]),其次是无法获得同意(120项标准[8.2%])和治疗限制决策(97项标准[6.7%])。大多数排除标准要么有充分的理由(1080项标准[74.2%]),要么有潜在的理由(297项标准[20.4%]),而5.4%(78项标准)的理由不充分。在78项理由不充分的排除标准中,最常见的是怀孕(19项标准[24.4%])、沟通障碍(11项标准[14.1%])、哺乳期(10项标准[12.8%])和缺乏健康保险(10项标准[12.8%])。总的来说,75项研究中有45项(60.0%)至少有1项不合理的排除标准。结论和相关性:危重医学随机对照试验中的大多数排除标准是完全合理的。在不合理的标准中,最常见的被排除在外的是怀孕或哺乳的人、有沟通障碍的人以及没有医疗保险的人。这突出了在设计试验时仔细考虑排除标准的必要性,以尽量减少不适当的排除参与者并提高普遍性。
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
Eligibility Criteria of Randomized Clinical Trials in Critical Care Medicine.

Importance: Eligibility criteria for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are designed to select clinically relevant patient populations. However, not all eligibility criteria are strongly justified, potentially excluding marginalized groups, and limiting the generalizability of trial findings.

Objective: To summarize and evaluate the justification of exclusion criteria in published RCTs in critical care medicine.

Evidence review: A systematic sampling review of parallel-group RCTs published in the top 5 general internal medicine journals by impact factor (The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, British Medical Journal, and Annals of Internal Medicine) between January 1, 2018, and February 23, 2023, was conducted. RCTs enrolling adults in intensive care units (ICUs) and RCTs enrolling critically ill patients who required life-sustaining interventions typically initiated in the ICU were included. All study exclusion criteria were categorized as either poorly justified, potentially justified, or strongly justified, adapting previously established criteria, independently and in duplicate.

Findings: In total, 225 studies were identified, 75 of which were included. The median (IQR) number of exclusion criteria per trial was 19 (14-24), with 1455 total exclusion criteria. Common exclusion criteria were related to the risk of adverse reaction to interventions (302 criteria [20.8%]), followed by inability to obtain consent (120 criteria [8.2%]), and treatment limitation decisions (97 criteria [6.7%]). Most exclusion criteria were either strongly justified (1080 criteria [74.2%]) or potentially justified (297 criteria [20.4%]), whereas 5.4% (78 criteria) were poorly justified. Of the 78 poorly justified exclusion criteria, the most common were pregnancy (19 criteria [24.4%]), communication barriers (11 criteria [14.1%]), lactation (10 criteria [12.8%]), and lack of health insurance (10 criteria [12.8%]). Overall, 45 of 75 studies (60.0%) had at least 1 poorly justified exclusion criteria.

Conclusions and relevance: Most exclusion criteria in critical care medicine RCTs were strongly justifiable. Across poorly justified criteria, the most common exclusions were pregnant or lactating persons, those with communication barriers, and individuals without health insurance. This highlights the need to carefully consider exclusion criteria when designing trials to minimize the inappropriate exclusion of participants and enhance generalizability.

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
JAMA Network Open
JAMA Network Open Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
2126
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMA Network Open, a member of the esteemed JAMA Network, stands as an international, peer-reviewed, open-access general medical journal.The publication is dedicated to disseminating research across various health disciplines and countries, encompassing clinical care, innovation in health care, health policy, and global health. JAMA Network Open caters to clinicians, investigators, and policymakers, providing a platform for valuable insights and advancements in the medical field. As part of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications, JAMA Network Open contributes to the collective knowledge and understanding within the medical community.
期刊最新文献
JAMA Network Open. Lipoprotein a Testing Patterns in the Veterans Health Administration. Parent-Targeted Oral Health Text Messaging for Underserved Children Attending Pediatric Clinics: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Prevalence of Dementia Among US Adults With Autism Spectrum Disorder. Recombinant vs Egg-Based Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccination for Nursing Home Residents: A Cluster Randomized Trial.
×
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