Factors and Their Impact on Treatment Effect of Acupuncture in Different Outcomes: A Meta-Regression of Acupuncture Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: The effects of acupuncture have varied in different randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and there are many factors that influence treatment effect of acupuncture in different outcomes, with conflicting results. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors and their impact on the treatment effect of acupuncture in different outcomes. METHODS: Acupuncture RCTs were searched from 7 databases including Medline (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and China Biology Medicine disc between January 1st, 2015 and December 31st, 2019. Eligible studies must compare acupuncture to no acupuncture, sham acupuncture, or waiting lists, and report at least 1 patient-important outcome. A multi-level meta-regression was conducted using a 3-level robust mixed model and univariate analyses were performed for all independent variables, even those excluded from the multivariable model due to collinearities. We used thresholds of 0.2 and 0.4 for the difference of standardized mean differences (SMDs), categorising them as small (<0.2), moderate (0.2-0.4), or large (>0.4) effects. RESULTS: The pain construct analysis involved 211 effect estimates from 153 studies and 14 independent variables. High-frequency acupuncture treatment sessions produced larger effects compared to low-frequency sessions [large magnitude, the difference of adjusted SMDs 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.84; P=0.02]. The non-pain symptoms construct analysis comprised 323 effect estimates from 231 studies and 15 independent variables. Penetrating acupuncture showed moderately larger effects when compared to non-penetrating acupuncture (0.30, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.53; P=0.01). The function construct analysis included 495 effect estimates from 274 studies and 14 independent variables. Penetrating acupuncture and the flexible acupuncture regimen showed moderately larger effects, compared to non-penetrating acupuncture and fixed regimen, respectively (0.40, 95% CI 0 to 0.80; P=0.05; 0.29, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.53; P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: High-frequency acupuncture sessions appear to be a more effective approach to managing painful symptoms. Penetrating acupuncture demonstrated greater effect in relieving non-painful symptoms. Both penetrating acupuncture type and flexible acupuncture regimen were linked to significant treatment effects in function outcomes. Future studies should consider the factors that are significantly associated with the effects of acupuncture in patient-important outcomes.

Factors and Their Impact on Treatment Effect of Acupuncture in Different Outcomes: A Meta-Regression of Acupuncture Randomized Controlled Trials / 中国结合医学杂志

BACKGROUND@#The effects of acupuncture have varied in different randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and there are many factors that influence treatment effect of acupuncture in different outcomes, with conflicting results.@*OBJECTIVE@#To identify factors and their impact on the treatment effect of acupuncture in different outcomes.@*METHODS@#Acupuncture RCTs were searched from 7 databases including Medline (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and China Biology Medicine disc between January 1st, 2015 and December 31st, 2019. Eligible studies must compare acupuncture to no acupuncture, sham acupuncture, or waiting lists, and report at least 1 patient-important outcome. A multi-level meta-regression was conducted using a 3-level robust mixed model and univariate analyses were performed for all independent variables, even those excluded from the multivariable model due to collinearities. We used thresholds of 0.2 and 0.4 for the difference of standardized mean differences (SMDs), categorising them as small (<0.2), moderate (0.2-0.4), or large (>0.4) effects.@*RESULTS@#The pain construct analysis involved 211 effect estimates from 153 studies and 14 independent variables. High-frequency acupuncture treatment sessions produced larger effects compared to low-frequency sessions [large magnitude, the difference of adjusted SMDs 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.84; P=0.02]. The non-pain symptoms construct analysis comprised 323 effect estimates from 231 studies and 15 independent variables. Penetrating acupuncture showed moderately larger effects when compared to non-penetrating acupuncture (0.30, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.53; P=0.01). The function construct analysis included 495 effect estimates from 274 studies and 14 independent variables. Penetrating acupuncture and the flexible acupuncture regimen showed moderately larger effects, compared to non-penetrating acupuncture and fixed regimen, respectively (0.40, 95% CI 0 to 0.80; P=0.05; 0.29, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.53; P=0.01).@*CONCLUSIONS@#High-frequency acupuncture sessions appear to be a more effective approach to managing painful symptoms. Penetrating acupuncture demonstrated greater effect in relieving non-painful symptoms. Both penetrating acupuncture type and flexible acupuncture regimen were linked to significant treatment effects in function outcomes. Future studies should consider the factors that are significantly associated with the effects of acupuncture in patient-important outcomes.

Decision-making given surrogate outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Opinions differ about the extent to which intervention research should and can directly assess the main patient-important health outcomes, what role surrogate endpoints can play, and which requirements should then apply to the scientific underpinning of clinical and policy decisions. METHOD: In a commentary we elaborate on this and provide guidance for dealing with related dilemmas. CONCLUSIONS: Ethical, methodological and practical reasons for decision making based on surrogate endpoints can be that (1) reaching the intended patient-important health outcome would take too long to await direct RCT-based evidence, (2) experimental conditions have limited sustainability over time; and (3) the plausibility of an intervention's clinical efficacy, given the already available evidence regarding surrogate endpoints, goes beyond equipoise. Given an expected increase of interventions with a long term patient-important health outcome perspective, dealing with surrogate endpoints will remain an important challenge. Appropriately dealing with a surrogate endpoint includes (1) the assessment of its predictive value for the intended patient-important outcome, where GRADE guidelines for assessing 'indirectness' and 'causal chain analysis' can be helpful; (2) transparency of (absence of) evidence; (3) adequately updating the 'knowledge mosaic'; (4) weighing different perspectives and values, and (5) monitoring whether adjustments need to be made. The remaining level of uncertainty must be balanced against the urgency of clinical or societal decision making and the disadvantages of postponing this. Criteria for using surrogate endpoints are suggested. Patients, citizens and policy makers can be involved in agreeing upon these criteria.

Patient-important outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatments for COVID-19: a protocol of a META-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 19 (covid-19) pandemic has underscored the need to expedite clinical research, which may lead investigators to shift away from measuring patient-important outcomes (PIO), limiting research applicability. We aim to investigate if randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of covid-19 pharmacological therapies include PIOs. METHODS: We will perform a meta-epidemiological study of RCTs that included people at risk for, or with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19, examining any pharmacological treatment or blood product aimed at prophylaxis or treatment. We will obtain data from all RCTs identified in a living network metanalysis (NMA). The main data sources are the living WHO covid-19 database up to 1 March 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Two reviewers independently will review each citation, full-text article, and abstract data. To categorize the outcomes according to their importance to patients, we will adapt a previously defined hierarchy: a) mortality, b) quality of life/ functional status/symptoms, c) morbidity, and d) surrogate outcomes. Outcomes within the category a) and b) will be considered critically important to patients, and outcomes within the category c) will be regarded as important. We will use descriptive statistics to assess the proportion of studies that report each category of outcomes. We will perform univariable and multivariable analysis to explore associations between trial characteristics and the likelihood of reporting PIOs. DISCUSSION: The findings from this meta-epidemiological study will help health care professionals and researchers understand if the current covid-19 trials are effectively assessing and reporting the outcomes that are important to patients. If a deficiency in capturing PIOs is identified, this information may help inform the development of future RCTs in covid-19. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATIONS: Open Science Framework registration: osf.io/6xgjz .

Quality of evidence of the efficacy of therapeutic interventions on patient-important outcomes in Cochrane's systematic reviews' abstracts: A survey.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the proportion of therapeutics that have proven their efficacy on patient-important outcomes with a high quality of evidence among Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs). METHODS: We surveyed a random sample of 400 SRs' abstracts published between September 2012 and December 2015, which compared therapeutic interventions with at least a placebo or no intervention control. The primary endpoint was the proportion of SRs with a statistically significant efficacy on a patient-important outcome and with a high quality of evidence. RESULTS: Among the 400 abstracts surveyed, 32 (8%) found efficacy on a patient-important outcome with a high quality of evidence. Half of the 400 SRs (50.2%) evaluated a pharmacological intervention and 12% of these found efficacy of the intervention on a patient-important outcome with a reported high quality of evidence. CONCLUSION: Based on an analysis of 400 abstracts of SRs from the Cochrane Collaboration, we found that there is a low number of therapeutic interventions which have proven their efficacy on patient-important outcomes with a high quality of evidence.

Total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific instrumentation for osteoarthritis of the knee: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific instrumentation (TKA-PSI), which are disposable cutting block guides generated to fit each patient's 3-dimensional knee anatomy, has been developed to treat patients with end-stage osteoarthritis of the knee. Surrogate markers such as radiographic malalignment have been well investigated, however, patient-important outcomes are not well examined to elucidate the efficacy of TKA-PSI. The aim of this review is to determine if TKA-PSI improves patient-reported outcome measures (PROM), surgery time, blood loss, transfusion and complications (e.g. surgical site infection, deep venous thrombosis, and revision TKA). METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ongoing clinical trials. For PROMs, surgery time, blood loss, and transfusion rate, we included randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing TKA-PSI and standard TKA to treat osteoarthritis of the knee. For complications, we also included non-randomized comparative studies (non-RCT). RESULTS: This review includes 38 studies, 24 of which were RCT and 14 of which were non-RCT. These included a total of 3487 patients. The predominant population in the included studies highly reflected the general population, with 62% being female, aged over 60 and having end-stage osteoarthritis of the knee. TKA-PSI did not improve PROMs as compared to standard TKA for less than 1-year (mean difference 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.92-0.97 in the Oxford knee score, mean 3-month follow-up) and for 1-year or more (mean difference 0.25, 95%CI - 4.39-4.89 in the WOMAC score, mean 29-month follow-up). TKA-PSI did not reduce surgery time (mean difference - 3.09 min, 95%CI -6.73-0.55). TKA-PSI decreased blood loss with a small effect size corresponding to a 0.4 g/dl hemoglobin decrease (95%CI 0.18-0.88), but did not decrease transfusion rate (risk difference - 0.04, 95%CI -0.09-0.01). TKA-PSI did not reduce complication rates (risk difference 0.00, 95%CI - 0.01-0.01 in the composite outcome). CONCLUSIONS: TKA-PSI does not improve patient-reported outcome measures, surgery time, and complication rates as compared to standard TKA. TKA-PSI decreases blood loss with a small effect, which is not enough to reduce transfusion rate.

Patient-important outcomes in randomized controlled trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Intensivists' clinical decision making pursues two main goals for patients: to decrease mortality and to improve quality of life and functional status in survivors. Patient-important outcomes are gaining wide acceptance in most fields of clinical research. We sought to systematically review how well patient-important outcomes are reported in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in critically ill patients. METHODS: Literature search was conducted to identify eligible trials indexed from January to December 2013. Articles were eligible if they reported an RCT involving critically ill adult patients. We excluded phase II, pilot and physiological crossover studies. We assessed study characteristics. All primary and secondary outcomes were collected, described and classified using six categories of outcomes including patient-important outcomes (involving mortality at any time on the one hand and quality of life, functional/cognitive/neurological outcomes assessed after ICU discharge on the other). RESULTS: Of the 716 articles retrieved in 2013, 112 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Most common topics were mechanical ventilation (27%), sepsis (19%) and nutrition (17%). Among the 112 primary outcomes, 27 (24%) were patient-important outcomes (mainly mortality, 21/27) but only six (5%) were patient-important outcomes besides mortality assessed after ICU discharge (functional disability = 4; quality of life = 2). Among the 598 secondary outcomes, 133 (22%) were patient-important outcomes (mainly mortality, 92/133) but only 41 (7%) were patient-important outcomes besides mortality assessed after ICU discharge (quality of life = 20, functional disability = 14; neurological/cognitive performance = 5; handicap = 1; post-traumatic stress = 1). Seventy-three RCTs (65%) reported at least one patient-important outcome but only 11 (10%) reported at least one patient-important outcome besides mortality assessed after ICU discharge. CONCLUSION: Patient-important outcomes are rarely primary outcomes in RCTs in critically ill patients published in 2013. Among them, mortality accounted for the majority. We promote the use of patient-important outcomes in critical care trials.

The move from accuracy studies to randomized trials in PET: current status and future directions.

UNLABELLED: Since the influential study by van Tinteren et al. published in The Lancet in 2002, there have been an increasing number of diagnostic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the benefit of PET. If they provide valid and useful information on the benefit, these studies can play an important role in informing guideline developers and policy makers. Our aim was to investigate how far the nuclear medicine community has come on its way from accuracy studies to RCTs and which issues we have to take into account in planning future studies. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of diagnostic randomized trials, in which PET was applied in only one arm. We covered published studies as well as registered unpublished and planned studies. We considered 3 quality indicators related to the usefulness of a trial to generate evidence for a clinical benefit: use of patient-important outcome, sufficient sample size, and current standard as comparator. RESULTS: Fourteen published and 15 planned studies were identified. Five of the published studies and 12 of the planned studies did not use a patient-important outcome. Sample sizes were often so small that a significant result could be expected only under the assumption of a substantial reduction in the event rate. Comparators typically reflected the current standard. CONCLUSION: If we consider the traditional areas of primary diagnosis, staging, and follow-up, then the number and quality of RCTs on PET is currently not sufficient to provide a major source for evidence-based decisions on the clinical benefit of PET. There will also be a future need in these traditional areas to deduce the clinical benefit of PET from the results of accuracy studies. The situation may be more favorable for the areas of treatment planning and response evaluation. Choice of patient-important outcomes and sufficient sample sizes are crucial issues in planning RCTs to demonstrate the clinical benefit of using PET.