慢性疼痛随机对照试验的中止和非发表分析。

IF 3.4 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES Pain Reports Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI:10.1097/PR9.0000000000001069
Samuel M Jacobsen, Ty Moore, Alexander Douglas, Drew Lester, Austin L Johnson, Matt Vassar
{"title":"慢性疼痛随机对照试验的中止和非发表分析。","authors":"Samuel M Jacobsen,&nbsp;Ty Moore,&nbsp;Alexander Douglas,&nbsp;Drew Lester,&nbsp;Austin L Johnson,&nbsp;Matt Vassar","doi":"10.1097/PR9.0000000000001069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The primary objective of this cross-sectional analysis is to evaluate rates of discontinuation and nonpublication of Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of therapeutic interventions to treat chronic pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using ClinicalTrials.gov, a sample was obtained which included clinical trials pertaining to chronic pain. Trials were analyzed for publication status and completion status of each trial. If information was unavailable on the trial registry database, or could not be allocated through a systematic search, the corresponding trialist was contacted and data points were gathered.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In our final analysis of the 408 RCTs, we found that 281 (68.9%) were published in a peer-reviewed journal and 127 (31.1%) were unpublished trials. Of 112 discontinued trials, 59 (52.7%) reached publication. In addition, 221 of 296 completed trials (74.7%) were published, and 75 (25.3%) remained unpublished after trial completion. The most common listed reason for trial discontinuation was administrative recommendations (41 of 71 trials [57.7%]), while not receiving an email reply to our standardized email from the corresponding trialist was the most common result for trial nonpublication (49 of 88 trials [55.7%]). Clinical trials funded by nonindustry sponsors were more likely to reach publication than industry-funded clinical trials (unadjusted odds ratio 1.86 [95% CI, 1.18-2.95]; adjusted odds ratio 3.01 [95% CI, 1.76-5.14]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The rate of discontinuation of RCTs involving patients with chronic pain is concerning. Chronic pain affects many patients; thus, the importance of having quality data from clinical trials cannot be overstated. Our study indicates that chronic pain RCTs are frequently discontinued and their findings often go unpublished - all of which could provide crucial information to providers and patients regarding the treatment of chronic pain. We offer suggestions to enhance chronic pain RCT completion, thereby reducing the waste of resources in chronic pain research.</p>","PeriodicalId":52189,"journal":{"name":"Pain Reports","volume":"8 3","pages":"e1069"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10079346/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discontinuation and nonpublication analysis of chronic pain randomized controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Samuel M Jacobsen,&nbsp;Ty Moore,&nbsp;Alexander Douglas,&nbsp;Drew Lester,&nbsp;Austin L Johnson,&nbsp;Matt Vassar\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PR9.0000000000001069\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The primary objective of this cross-sectional analysis is to evaluate rates of discontinuation and nonpublication of Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of therapeutic interventions to treat chronic pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using ClinicalTrials.gov, a sample was obtained which included clinical trials pertaining to chronic pain. Trials were analyzed for publication status and completion status of each trial. If information was unavailable on the trial registry database, or could not be allocated through a systematic search, the corresponding trialist was contacted and data points were gathered.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In our final analysis of the 408 RCTs, we found that 281 (68.9%) were published in a peer-reviewed journal and 127 (31.1%) were unpublished trials. Of 112 discontinued trials, 59 (52.7%) reached publication. In addition, 221 of 296 completed trials (74.7%) were published, and 75 (25.3%) remained unpublished after trial completion. The most common listed reason for trial discontinuation was administrative recommendations (41 of 71 trials [57.7%]), while not receiving an email reply to our standardized email from the corresponding trialist was the most common result for trial nonpublication (49 of 88 trials [55.7%]). Clinical trials funded by nonindustry sponsors were more likely to reach publication than industry-funded clinical trials (unadjusted odds ratio 1.86 [95% CI, 1.18-2.95]; adjusted odds ratio 3.01 [95% CI, 1.76-5.14]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The rate of discontinuation of RCTs involving patients with chronic pain is concerning. Chronic pain affects many patients; thus, the importance of having quality data from clinical trials cannot be overstated. Our study indicates that chronic pain RCTs are frequently discontinued and their findings often go unpublished - all of which could provide crucial information to providers and patients regarding the treatment of chronic pain. We offer suggestions to enhance chronic pain RCT completion, thereby reducing the waste of resources in chronic pain research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain Reports\",\"volume\":\"8 3\",\"pages\":\"e1069\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10079346/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PR9.0000000000001069\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PR9.0000000000001069","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本横断面分析的主要目的是评估治疗性干预治疗慢性疼痛的随机对照试验(rct)的中止率和未发表率。方法:使用ClinicalTrials.gov网站获取样本,其中包括与慢性疼痛有关的临床试验。分析各试验的发表状态和完成状态。如果在试验注册数据库中没有信息,或者无法通过系统搜索分配信息,则联系相应的试验人员并收集数据点。结果:在我们对408项随机对照试验的最终分析中,我们发现281项(68.9%)发表在同行评议期刊上,127项(31.1%)为未发表的试验。在112项中止试验中,59项(52.7%)发表。此外,296项已完成的试验中有221项(74.7%)发表,75项(25.3%)在试验完成后仍未发表。试验中止最常见的原因是行政建议(71项试验中有41项[57.7%]),而未收到相应试验人员的电子邮件回复是试验未发表最常见的原因(88项试验中有49项[55.7%])。由非行业赞助商资助的临床试验比行业资助的临床试验更有可能发表(未经调整的优势比1.86 [95% CI, 1.18-2.95];校正优势比3.01 [95% CI, 1.76-5.14])。结论:涉及慢性疼痛患者的随机对照试验的中止率令人担忧。慢性疼痛影响许多患者;因此,从临床试验中获得高质量数据的重要性怎么强调都不为过。我们的研究表明,慢性疼痛随机对照试验经常被终止,他们的发现往往没有发表——所有这些都可以为提供者和患者提供关于慢性疼痛治疗的重要信息。我们提出了提高慢性疼痛RCT完成度的建议,从而减少慢性疼痛研究的资源浪费。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Discontinuation and nonpublication analysis of chronic pain randomized controlled trials.

Introduction: The primary objective of this cross-sectional analysis is to evaluate rates of discontinuation and nonpublication of Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of therapeutic interventions to treat chronic pain.

Methods: Using ClinicalTrials.gov, a sample was obtained which included clinical trials pertaining to chronic pain. Trials were analyzed for publication status and completion status of each trial. If information was unavailable on the trial registry database, or could not be allocated through a systematic search, the corresponding trialist was contacted and data points were gathered.

Results: In our final analysis of the 408 RCTs, we found that 281 (68.9%) were published in a peer-reviewed journal and 127 (31.1%) were unpublished trials. Of 112 discontinued trials, 59 (52.7%) reached publication. In addition, 221 of 296 completed trials (74.7%) were published, and 75 (25.3%) remained unpublished after trial completion. The most common listed reason for trial discontinuation was administrative recommendations (41 of 71 trials [57.7%]), while not receiving an email reply to our standardized email from the corresponding trialist was the most common result for trial nonpublication (49 of 88 trials [55.7%]). Clinical trials funded by nonindustry sponsors were more likely to reach publication than industry-funded clinical trials (unadjusted odds ratio 1.86 [95% CI, 1.18-2.95]; adjusted odds ratio 3.01 [95% CI, 1.76-5.14]).

Conclusion: The rate of discontinuation of RCTs involving patients with chronic pain is concerning. Chronic pain affects many patients; thus, the importance of having quality data from clinical trials cannot be overstated. Our study indicates that chronic pain RCTs are frequently discontinued and their findings often go unpublished - all of which could provide crucial information to providers and patients regarding the treatment of chronic pain. We offer suggestions to enhance chronic pain RCT completion, thereby reducing the waste of resources in chronic pain research.

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
Pain Reports
Pain Reports Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
2.10%
发文量
93
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Preexisting chronic pain is not associated with moderate-to-severe acute pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective cohort study. Why might fears and worries persist after a pain education-grounded multimodal intervention for chronic back pain? A qualitative study. Pain and small fiber pathology in men with fibromyalgia syndrome. Upregulated spinal histone deacetylases induce nociceptive sensitization by inhibiting the GABA system in chronic constriction injury-induced neuropathy in rats. Integrated manual therapies: IASP taskforce viewpoint.
×
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