非劣效性语用试验未解决的问题:文献调查结果。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Clinical Trials Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-05 DOI:10.1177/17407745231206371
Maria M Ciarleglio, Jiaxuan Li, Peter Peduzzi
{"title":"非劣效性语用试验未解决的问题:文献调查结果。","authors":"Maria M Ciarleglio, Jiaxuan Li, Peter Peduzzi","doi":"10.1177/17407745231206371","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Issues with specification of margins, adherence, and analytic population can potentially bias results toward the alternative in randomized noninferiority pragmatic trials. To investigate this potential for bias, we conducted a targeted search of the medical literature to examine how noninferiority pragmatic trials address these issues.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An Ovid MEDLINE database search was performed identifying publications in <i>New England Journal of Medicine</i>, <i>Journal of the American Medical Association</i>, <i>Lancet</i>, or <i>British Medical Journal</i> published between 2015 and 2021 that included the words \"pragmatic\" or \"comparative effectiveness\" and \"noninferiority\" or \"non-inferiority.\" Our search identified 14 potential trials, 12 meeting our inclusion criteria (11 individually randomized, 1 cluster-randomized).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven trials had results that met the criteria established for noninferiority. Noninferiority margins were prespecified for all trials; all but two trials provided justification of the margin. Most trials did some monitoring of treatment adherence. All trials conducted intent-to-treat or modified intent-to-treat analyses along with per-protocol analyses and these analyses reached similar conclusions. Only two trials included all randomized participants in the primary analysis, one used multiple imputation for missing data. The percentage excluded from primary analyses ranged from ∼2% to 30%. Reasons for exclusion included randomization in error, nonadherence, not receiving assigned treatment, death, withdrawal, lost to follow-up, and incomplete data.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Specification of margins, adherence, and analytic population require careful consideration to prevent bias toward the alternative in noninferiority pragmatic trials. Although separate guidance has been developed for noninferiority and pragmatic trials, it is not compatible with conducting a noninferiority pragmatic trial. Hence, these trials should probably not be done in their current format without developing new guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":10685,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Trials","volume":" ","pages":"242-256"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unresolved issues with noninferiority pragmatic trials: Results of a literature survey.\",\"authors\":\"Maria M Ciarleglio, Jiaxuan Li, Peter Peduzzi\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17407745231206371\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Issues with specification of margins, adherence, and analytic population can potentially bias results toward the alternative in randomized noninferiority pragmatic trials. To investigate this potential for bias, we conducted a targeted search of the medical literature to examine how noninferiority pragmatic trials address these issues.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An Ovid MEDLINE database search was performed identifying publications in <i>New England Journal of Medicine</i>, <i>Journal of the American Medical Association</i>, <i>Lancet</i>, or <i>British Medical Journal</i> published between 2015 and 2021 that included the words \\\"pragmatic\\\" or \\\"comparative effectiveness\\\" and \\\"noninferiority\\\" or \\\"non-inferiority.\\\" Our search identified 14 potential trials, 12 meeting our inclusion criteria (11 individually randomized, 1 cluster-randomized).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven trials had results that met the criteria established for noninferiority. Noninferiority margins were prespecified for all trials; all but two trials provided justification of the margin. Most trials did some monitoring of treatment adherence. All trials conducted intent-to-treat or modified intent-to-treat analyses along with per-protocol analyses and these analyses reached similar conclusions. Only two trials included all randomized participants in the primary analysis, one used multiple imputation for missing data. The percentage excluded from primary analyses ranged from ∼2% to 30%. Reasons for exclusion included randomization in error, nonadherence, not receiving assigned treatment, death, withdrawal, lost to follow-up, and incomplete data.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Specification of margins, adherence, and analytic population require careful consideration to prevent bias toward the alternative in noninferiority pragmatic trials. Although separate guidance has been developed for noninferiority and pragmatic trials, it is not compatible with conducting a noninferiority pragmatic trial. Hence, these trials should probably not be done in their current format without developing new guidelines.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10685,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Trials\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"242-256\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745231206371\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745231206371","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在随机非劣效性务实试验中,边缘、依从性和分析人群的规范问题可能会使结果偏向于替代方案。为了研究这种潜在的偏见,我们对医学文献进行了有针对性的搜索,以研究非劣效性语用试验如何解决这些问题。方法:在Ovid MEDLINE数据库中搜索2015年至2021年间发表在《新英格兰医学杂志》、《美国医学会杂志》、Lancet或《英国医学杂志》上的出版物,其中包括“务实”或“比较有效性”、“非劣效性”或“非劣性”,12个符合我们的纳入标准(11个单独随机化,1个集群随机化)。结果:11项试验的结果符合非劣效性标准。所有试验均预先规定了非劣效性界限;除两次审判外,其他所有审判都为这一差额提供了正当理由。大多数试验都对治疗依从性进行了一些监测。所有试验都进行了意向治疗或修改了意向治疗分析以及方案分析,这些分析得出了类似的结论。只有两项试验将所有随机参与者纳入初步分析,其中一项试验对缺失数据进行了多重插补。排除在主要分析之外的百分比范围为~2%至30%。排除的原因包括随机化错误、不依从性、未接受指定治疗、死亡、停药、随访失败和数据不完整。结论:在非劣效性语用试验中,需要仔细考虑边际、依从性和分析人群的规范,以防止对替代方案的偏见。尽管已经为非劣效性和语用试验制定了单独的指南,但它与进行非劣效的语用试验不兼容。因此,如果不制定新的指导方针,这些试验可能不应该以目前的形式进行。
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
Unresolved issues with noninferiority pragmatic trials: Results of a literature survey.

Background: Issues with specification of margins, adherence, and analytic population can potentially bias results toward the alternative in randomized noninferiority pragmatic trials. To investigate this potential for bias, we conducted a targeted search of the medical literature to examine how noninferiority pragmatic trials address these issues.

Methods: An Ovid MEDLINE database search was performed identifying publications in New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, or British Medical Journal published between 2015 and 2021 that included the words "pragmatic" or "comparative effectiveness" and "noninferiority" or "non-inferiority." Our search identified 14 potential trials, 12 meeting our inclusion criteria (11 individually randomized, 1 cluster-randomized).

Results: Eleven trials had results that met the criteria established for noninferiority. Noninferiority margins were prespecified for all trials; all but two trials provided justification of the margin. Most trials did some monitoring of treatment adherence. All trials conducted intent-to-treat or modified intent-to-treat analyses along with per-protocol analyses and these analyses reached similar conclusions. Only two trials included all randomized participants in the primary analysis, one used multiple imputation for missing data. The percentage excluded from primary analyses ranged from ∼2% to 30%. Reasons for exclusion included randomization in error, nonadherence, not receiving assigned treatment, death, withdrawal, lost to follow-up, and incomplete data.

Conclusion: Specification of margins, adherence, and analytic population require careful consideration to prevent bias toward the alternative in noninferiority pragmatic trials. Although separate guidance has been developed for noninferiority and pragmatic trials, it is not compatible with conducting a noninferiority pragmatic trial. Hence, these trials should probably not be done in their current format without developing new guidelines.

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
Clinical Trials
Clinical Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
82
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Trials is dedicated to advancing knowledge on the design and conduct of clinical trials related research methodologies. Covering the design, conduct, analysis, synthesis and evaluation of key methodologies, the journal remains on the cusp of the latest topics, including ethics, regulation and policy impact.
期刊最新文献
Challenges in conducting efficacy trials for new COVID-19 vaccines in developed countries. Society for Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committee initiative website: Closing the gap. A comparison of computational algorithms for the Bayesian analysis of clinical trials. Comparison of Bayesian and frequentist monitoring boundaries motivated by the Multiplatform Randomized Clinical Trial. Efficient designs for three-sequence stepped wedge trials with continuous recruitment.
×
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