Suppr超能文献

在随机对照试验摘要中报告资金来源或利益冲突,对全科医生对结论的信心没有重大影响的证据,一项三臂随机对照试验。

Reporting funding source or conflict of interest in abstracts of randomized controlled trials, no evidence of a large impact on general practitioners' confidence in conclusions, a three-arm randomized controlled trial.

作者信息

Buffel du Vaure Céline, Boutron Isabelle, Perrodeau Elodie, Ravaud Philippe

出版信息

BMC Med. 2014 Apr 28;12:69. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-12-69.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Systematic reporting of funding sources is recommended in the CONSORT Statement for abstracts. However, no specific recommendation is related to the reporting of conflicts of interest (CoI). The objective was to compare physicians' confidence in the conclusions of abstracts of randomized controlled trials of pharmaceutical treatment indexed in PubMed.

METHODS

We planned a three-arm parallel-group randomized trial. French general practitioners (GPs) were invited to participate and were blinded to the study's aim. We used a representative sample of 75 abstracts of pharmaceutical industry-funded randomized controlled trials published in 2010 and indexed in PubMed. Each abstract was standardized and reported in three formats: 1) no mention of the funding source or CoI; 2) reporting the funding source only; and 3) reporting the funding source and CoI. GPs were randomized according to a computerized randomization on a secure Internet system at a 1:1:1 ratio to assess one abstract among the three formats. The primary outcome was GPs' confidence in the abstract conclusions (0, not at all, to 10, completely confident). The study was planned to detect a large difference with an effect size of 0.5.

RESULTS

Between October 2012 and June 2013, among 605 GPs contacted, 354 were randomized, 118 for each type of abstract. The mean difference (95% confidence interval) in GPs' confidence in abstract findings was 0.2 (-0.6; 1.0) (P = 0.84) for abstracts reporting the funding source only versus no funding source or CoI; -0.4 (-1.3; 0.4) (P = 0.39) for abstracts reporting the funding source and CoI versus no funding source and CoI; and -0.6 (-1.5; 0.2) (P = 0.15) for abstracts reporting the funding source and CoI versus the funding source only.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of a large impact of trial report abstracts mentioning funding sources or CoI on GPs' confidence in the conclusions of the abstracts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01679873.

摘要

背景

《CONSORT声明》建议在摘要中系统报告资金来源。然而,对于利益冲突(CoI)的报告没有具体建议。目的是比较医生对PubMed中索引的药物治疗随机对照试验摘要结论的信心。

方法

我们计划进行一项三臂平行组随机试验。邀请法国全科医生(GPs)参与,并对研究目的保密。我们使用了2010年发表并在PubMed中索引的75篇制药行业资助的随机对照试验摘要的代表性样本。每篇摘要都进行了标准化处理,并以三种格式报告:1)未提及资金来源或利益冲突;2)仅报告资金来源;3)报告资金来源和利益冲突。全科医生通过安全互联网系统上的计算机随机化以1:1:1的比例随机分配,以评估三种格式中的一篇摘要。主要结果是全科医生对摘要结论的信心(0表示完全没有信心,10表示完全有信心)。该研究计划检测出效应大小为0.5的较大差异。

结果

在2012年10月至2013年6月期间,在联系的605名全科医生中,354人被随机分配,每种摘要类型各118人。仅报告资金来源的摘要与未报告资金来源或利益冲突的摘要相比,全科医生对摘要结果的信心平均差异(95%置信区间)为0.2(-0.6;1.0)(P = 0.84);报告资金来源和利益冲突的摘要与未报告资金来源和利益冲突的摘要相比,平均差异为-0.4(-1.3;0.4)(P = 0.39);报告资金来源和利益冲突的摘要与仅报告资金来源的摘要相比,平均差异为-0.6(-1.5;0.2)(P = 0.15)。

结论

我们没有发现证据表明提及资金来源或利益冲突的试验报告摘要对全科医生对摘要结论的信心有很大影响。

试验注册

ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT01679873。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3a0a/4022327/3f7acb233367/1741-7015-12-69-1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验