Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Inadequate Reporting of Cointerventions, Other Methodological Factors, and Treatment Estimates in Cardiovascular Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.
Bührer, Jonas; Del Giovane, Cinzia; Gencer, Baris; Adam, Luise; Lyko, Christina; Feller, Martin; Da Costa, Bruno R; Aujesky, Drahomir; Bauer, Douglas C; Rodondi, Nicolas; Moutzouri, Elisavet.
Afiliación
  • Bührer J; Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Switzerland.
  • Del Giovane C; Department of General Internal Medicine, Inselspital, University Hospital of Bern, University of Bern, Switzerland.
  • Gencer B; Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Switzerland.
  • Adam L; Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Switzerland.
  • Lyko C; Department of Cardiology, University of Geneva, Switzerland.
  • Feller M; Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Switzerland.
  • Da Costa BR; Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Switzerland.
  • Aujesky D; Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Switzerland.
  • Bauer DC; Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Switzerland.
  • Rodondi N; Applied Health Research Centre (AHRC), Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  • Moutzouri E; Department of General Internal Medicine, Inselspital, University Hospital of Bern, University of Bern, Switzerland.
Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes ; 7(4): 231-240, 2023 Aug.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37304064
Objective: To assess how inadequate reporting of cointerventions influences estimated treatment effects in recent cardiovascular trials. Methods: Medline/Embase were systematically searched from January 1, 2011 to July 1, 2021 for trials evaluating pharmacologic interventions on clinical cardiovascular outcomes published in 5 high-impact journals. Information on adequate vs inadequate reporting of cointerventions, blinding, risk of bias due to deviations of intended interventions (low vs high/some concerns), funding (nonindustry vs industry), design (superiority vs noninferiority), and results were assessed by 2 reviewers. The association with effect sizes was assessed using meta-regression random-effect analysis, expressed as ratios of odds ratios (ROR). RORs of >1.0 indicated that trials with the methodological factor pointing to lower quality report larger treatment estimates. Results: In total, 164 trials were included. Of the 164 trials, 124 (74%) did not adequately report cointerventions; 89 of the 164 trials (54%) provided no information regarding cointerventions, and 70 of the 164 (43%) were at risk of bias due to inadequate blinding. Moreover, 86 of the 164 (53%) were at risk of bias due to deviation of intended interventions. Of the 164 trials, 144 (88%) were funded by the industries. Trials with inadequate reporting of cointerventions had larger treatment estimates for the primary end point (ROR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.15; I2=0%). No significant association with results for blinding (ROR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03; I2=66%), deviation of intended interventions (ROR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04; I2=0%), or funding (ROR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93-1.09; I2=0%) was found. Conclusion: We conclude that trials with inadequate reporting of cointerventions showed larger treatment effect estimates, potentially indicating overestimation of therapeutic benefit. Trial Registration: Prospero Identifier: CRD42017072522.

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Suiza

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Suiza