Unreported exclusion and sampling bias in interpretation of randomized controlled trials in patients with STEMI.
Int J Cardiol
; 289: 1-5, 2019 08 15.
Article
em En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-31078351
AIMS: To assess the impact of sampling bias due to reported as well as unreported exclusion of the target population in a multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared clinical characteristics and mortality between participants in the DANAMI-3 trial to contemporary non-participants with STEMI using unselected registries. A total of 179 DANAMI-3 participants (8%) and 617 contemporary non-participants (22%) had died (Log-Rank: Pâ¯<â¯0.001) after a median follow-up of 1333â¯days (range: 1-2021â¯days). In an unadjusted Cox regression model all groups of non-participants had a higher hazard ratio to predict mortality compared to participants: eligible excluded (nâ¯=â¯144) (hazard ratio: 3.41 (95% CI: (2.69-4.32)), ineligible excluded (nâ¯=â¯472) (hazard ratio: 3.42 (95% CI: (2.44-4.80), eligible non-screened (nâ¯=â¯154) (hazard ratio: 3.37 (95% CI: (2.36-4.82)), ineligible non-screened (nâ¯=â¯154) (hazard ratio: 6.48 (95% CI: (4.77-8.80). CONCLUSION: Sampling bias had occurred due to both reported and unreported exclusion of eligible patients and the difference in mortality between participants and non-participants could not be explained only by the trial exclusion criteria. Thus, screening logs may not be suited to address the risks of sampling bias.
Palavras-chave
Texto completo:
1
Coleções:
01-internacional
Base de dados:
MEDLINE
Tipo de estudo:
Clinical_trials
/
Observational_studies
/
Prognostic_studies
/
Risk_factors_studies
Limite:
Humans
País/Região como assunto:
Europa
Idioma:
En
Ano de publicação:
2019
Tipo de documento:
Article