在比较两种治疗方法时,应该做什么,应该避免什么?

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 HEMATOLOGY Best Practice & Research Clinical Haematology Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.beha.2023.101473
Florie Brion Bouvier , Raphaël Porcher
{"title":"在比较两种治疗方法时,应该做什么,应该避免什么?","authors":"Florie Brion Bouvier ,&nbsp;Raphaël Porcher","doi":"10.1016/j.beha.2023.101473","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>The preferred approach to compare two treatments is a </span>randomized controlled trial (RCT). Indeed, randomization ensures that the groups compared are similar. Well-designed and well-conducted RCTs thus allow to draw causal conclusions on the relative efficacy and safety of treatments compared. However, it is not always possible to conduct RCTs for all clinical questions of interest, and observational data may also be used to infer on the relative effectiveness of treatments. In this review, we present different approaches that allow statistically valid comparisons of the effectiveness of treatments using observational data under some assumptions. Those are based on regression modelling or the propensity score. We also present the principles of target trial emulation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8744,"journal":{"name":"Best Practice & Research Clinical Haematology","volume":"36 2","pages":"Article 101473"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What should be done and what should be avoided when comparing two treatments?\",\"authors\":\"Florie Brion Bouvier ,&nbsp;Raphaël Porcher\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.beha.2023.101473\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><span>The preferred approach to compare two treatments is a </span>randomized controlled trial (RCT). Indeed, randomization ensures that the groups compared are similar. Well-designed and well-conducted RCTs thus allow to draw causal conclusions on the relative efficacy and safety of treatments compared. However, it is not always possible to conduct RCTs for all clinical questions of interest, and observational data may also be used to infer on the relative effectiveness of treatments. In this review, we present different approaches that allow statistically valid comparisons of the effectiveness of treatments using observational data under some assumptions. Those are based on regression modelling or the propensity score. We also present the principles of target trial emulation.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Best Practice & Research Clinical Haematology\",\"volume\":\"36 2\",\"pages\":\"Article 101473\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Best Practice & Research Clinical Haematology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1521692623000348\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Best Practice & Research Clinical Haematology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1521692623000348","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

比较两种治疗方法的首选方法是随机对照试验(RCT)。事实上,随机化可以确保被比较的组是相似的。因此,设计良好、实施良好的随机对照试验可以就所比较的治疗的相对有效性和安全性得出因果结论。然而,并非总是可以对所有感兴趣的临床问题进行随机对照试验,观察数据也可以用来推断治疗的相对有效性。在这篇综述中,我们提出了不同的方法,允许在某些假设下使用观察性数据对治疗的有效性进行统计有效的比较。这些是基于回归模型或倾向得分。我们还介绍了目标试验模拟的原理。
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
What should be done and what should be avoided when comparing two treatments?

The preferred approach to compare two treatments is a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Indeed, randomization ensures that the groups compared are similar. Well-designed and well-conducted RCTs thus allow to draw causal conclusions on the relative efficacy and safety of treatments compared. However, it is not always possible to conduct RCTs for all clinical questions of interest, and observational data may also be used to infer on the relative effectiveness of treatments. In this review, we present different approaches that allow statistically valid comparisons of the effectiveness of treatments using observational data under some assumptions. Those are based on regression modelling or the propensity score. We also present the principles of target trial emulation.

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
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
审稿时长
35 days
期刊介绍: Best Practice & Research Clinical Haematology publishes review articles integrating the results from the latest original research articles into practical, evidence-based review articles. These articles seek to address the key clinical issues of diagnosis, treatment and patient management. Each issue follows a problem-orientated approach which focuses on the key questions to be addressed, clearly defining what is known and not known, covering the spectrum of clinical and laboratory haematological practice and research. Although most reviews are invited, the Editor welcomes suggestions from potential authors.
期刊最新文献
CAR assembly line: Taking CAR T-cell manufacturing to the next level Analyte heterogeneity analysis as a possible potency parameter for MSC Erratum to “Special issue 37.2 and 37.3 Genetics and Function of HLA and immune-related genes in transplantation and cellular immunotherapy” [Best Pract Res Clin Haematol (2024) 101588] Editorial Board From clones to immunopeptidomes: New developments in the characterization of permissive HLA-DP mismatches in hematopoietic cell transplantation
×
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