Trial Comparison(试用比较)研究综述
Trial Comparison 试用比较 - Lack of consensus on how to define the outcome and corresponding measure of treatment effect complicates interpretation and limits between-trial comparisons. [1] Purpose Currently, varying treatment paradigms and different clinical trial constructs preclude cross-trial comparison between different available vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors. [2] However, less is known on cross-trial comparisons of absolute outcome measures like median survival times. [3] Although cross-trial comparisons should be made with caution, activity results seem to be similar to previously presented brentuximab vedotin chemotherapy salvage combinations delivered over much longer durations and can be considered in young (<60 years), transplantation-eligible patients for second-line therapy. [4] One hundred and three trial comparisons (N = 538) were included. [5] Clinical trials of contraceptives have often differed in their study designs, making cross-trial comparisons difficult. [6] Although network meta-analysis provides rankings with statistical adjustments, there are inherent biases in cross-trial comparisons with sparse direct evidence that does not replace randomized comparisons. [7] Athletes reported that the AirOFit PRO™ device is easier in operation as a device and provides more information during trial comparisons to MicroPRM (p=0. [8] 2 were used merely as examples of the different relation of absolute and relative risk to background risk rate, with no pretense to establish quantitative norms or formal between-trial comparisons. [9] We highlight the challenges associated with cross-trial comparisons of benefit/risk, discuss blood eosinophils as a marker of ICS responsiveness, and summarize current treatment recommendations and the position of SITT in the management of COPD, including potential advantages in terms of improving patient adherence. [10] This review identified factors that increase our understanding of why patients and clinicians may find equipoise more challenging in these types of trials compared to other trial comparisons. [11] Considering the paucity and lack of depth of their arguments in addition to the questionable scientific and clinical rationale, we challenge herein Panjabi and Iskander's position that our NMA "should not be used to inform treatment decisions because the analysis was significantly flawed" as well as their innuendo that a carfilzomib-based doublet offers better efficacy than other treatments based on naive, cross-trial comparisons of medians. [12] To make sound evidence-based decisions, clinicians routinely rely on cross-trial comparisons from different trials of similar but not identical patient populations to assess competing technology when head-to-head randomized comparisons are unavailable. [13] RESULTS Between-trial comparisons revealed possible to likely small impairments in PPO (2. [14] We performed a cross-trial comparison of the NIH TrialNet sponsored new-onset rituximab, abatacept, low-dose anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) (2. [15] Its objective is the application of algorithms to solve civil matters, into the allocation of goods, leading the parties to a friendly solution before or during the trial comparison. [16] RESULTS: CONCLUSIONS: While acknowledging between-trial comparisons including eligibility differences, E-HRT yields significant reductions in BrCa mortality and case fatality as compared with TAM (54% and 58% respectively). [17] Randomized clinical trials performed in the pre-rituximab and pre-PET era had varied inclusion criteria, treatment arms, and study questions, which limits inter-trial comparisons. [18] To quantify the region-specific cost differences, we conducted a within-trial comparison by expressing the estimated regional costs associated with the sites in each global region as a percent of the same costs in North America. [19] For these situations, knowledge of the unique pharmacological features of the various NOACs and judicious cross-trial comparison can help inform prescription choices. [20] All other between trial comparisons of performance were unclear. [21] There were important differences in study designs and populations impacting the interpretation of the results and indicating there would be significant heterogeneity in cross-trial comparisons. [22] The primary objectives are the following: to apply algorithmic mechanisms to the solution of certain national and cross-border civil matters, including matrimonial regimes, successions and trusts, commercial law and consumer law, facilitating the agreement process among the parties; to demonstrate the efficacy of an algorithmic approach and apply it into the allocation of goods, or the resolution of issues, in disputes, leading the parties to a friendly solution before or during the trial comparison. [23] We recognize the limitations of cross-trial comparisons based on NNTs and other metrics and acknowledge them in the Discussion section at large [1]. [24]在如何定义治疗效果的结果和相应的衡量标准方面缺乏共识,这使解释变得复杂,并限制了试验之间的比较。 [1] 目的 目前,不同的治疗范例和不同的临床试验结构排除了不同可用血管内皮生长因子 (VEGF) 抑制剂之间的交叉试验比较。 [2] 然而,对于中位生存时间等绝对结果指标的交叉试验比较知之甚少。 [3] 尽管应谨慎进行交叉试验比较,但活性结果似乎与之前提出的 brentuximab vedotin 化疗挽救组合相似,其持续时间更长,可考虑用于年轻(<60 岁)、符合移植条件的二线患者治疗。 [4] 包括 103 个试验比较 (N = 538)。 [5] 避孕药的临床试验在研究设计上经常不同,使得交叉试验比较困难。 [6] 尽管网络荟萃分析提供了具有统计调整的排名,但在交叉试验比较中存在固有的偏差,其直接证据稀少,不能替代随机比较。 [7] 运动员报告说,AirOFit PRO™ 设备作为一种设备更易于操作,并在与 MicroPRM 进行试验比较期间提供更多信息 (p=0. [8] 2 仅用作绝对风险和相对风险与背景风险率的不同关系的示例,没有假装建立定量规范或正式的试验间比较。 [9] 我们强调了与利益/风险的交叉试验比较相关的挑战,讨论了作为 ICS 反应性标志物的血嗜酸性粒细胞,并总结了当前的治疗建议和 SITT 在 COPD 管理中的地位,包括在提高患者依从性方面的潜在优势. [10] 这篇综述确定了一些因素,这些因素增加了我们对为什么患者和临床医生可能会发现在这些类型的试验中与其他试验比较相比更具挑战性的理解。 [11] 考虑到他们的论点缺乏和缺乏深度,除了有问题的科学和临床原理外,我们在此挑战 Panjabi 和 Iskander 的立场,即我们的 NMA“不应用于为治疗决策提供信息,因为分析存在重大缺陷”以及他们的暗示基于 carfilzomib 的双药比其他基于中位数的天真、交叉试验比较的治疗具有更好的疗效。 [12] 为了做出合理的循证决策,临床医生通常依赖于对相似但不相同的患者群体进行的不同试验的交叉试验比较,以在无法进行头对头随机比较时评估竞争技术。 [13] 结果 试验间比较显示 PPO 可能存在小的损伤 (2. [14] 我们对 NIH TrialNet 赞助的新发利妥昔单抗、阿巴西普、低剂量抗胸腺细胞球蛋白 (ATG) 进行了交叉试验比较 (2. [15] 其目标是将算法应用于解决民事问题,进入货物分配,在审判比较之前或期间引导各方友好解决。 [16] 结果:结论:虽然承认试验间比较包括资格差异,但与 TAM 相比,E-HRT 显着降低了 BrCa 死亡率和病死率(分别为 54% 和 58%)。 [17] 在利妥昔单抗前和 PET 前时代进行的随机临床试验具有不同的纳入标准、治疗组和研究问题,这限制了试验间比较。 [18] 为了量化特定区域的成本差异,我们通过将与每个全球区域的站点相关的估计区域成本表示为北美相同成本的百分比来进行试验内比较。 [19] 对于这些情况,了解各种 NOAC 的独特药理学特征和明智的交叉试验比较有助于为处方选择提供信息。 [20] 所有其他试验之间的性能比较都不清楚。 [21] 研究设计和人群存在重要差异,影响结果的解释,表明交叉试验比较存在显着异质性。 [22] 主要目标如下:将算法机制应用于某些国家和跨境民事事务的解决,包括婚姻制度、继承和信托、商法和消费者法,促进各方之间的协议过程;展示算法方法的有效性,并将其应用于货物分配或争议中的问题解决,引导当事人在审判比较之前或期间达成友好的解决方案。 [23] 我们认识到基于 NNT 和其他指标的交叉试验比较的局限性,并在整个讨论部分 [1] 中承认它们。 [24]
food sources sugar 食物来源糖
Eligibility was met by 41 trials (72 trial comparisons, N = 2109) assessing the effect of 9 food sources (sugar-sweetened beverages [SSBs], sweetened dairy, fruit drink [lemonade], 100% fruit juice, fruit, dried fruit [raisins], baked goods desserts and sweets, added nutritive [caloric] sweetener and mixed sources) across the 4 energy levels. [1] We included 76 trials (121 trial comparisons, N = 4 302) assessing 9 food sources (sugar-sweetened beverages [SSBs], sweetened dairy alternatives, 100% fruit juice, fruit, dried fruit, sweets, added nutritive sweetener, sweetened cereal grains/bars, and mixed sources) across the 4 levels of energy control. [2] We included 44 trials (65 trial comparisons, n = 1941) assessing the effect of 8 food sources (sugar-sweetened beverages [SSBs]; sweetened dairy alternative [soy]; fruit juice; fruit; dried fruit; baked goods, desserts and sweets; added nutritive sweetener; and mixed sources) across 4 energy levels. [3]41 项试验(72 项试验比较,N = 2109)符合资格,评估 9 种食物来源(含糖饮料 [SSB]、加糖乳制品、果汁饮料 [柠檬水]、100% 果汁、水果、干果 [葡萄干]、烘焙食品甜点和糖果、添加营养 [热量] 甜味剂和混合来源)跨越 4 个能量水平。 [1] 我们纳入了 76 项试验(121 项试验比较,N = 4 302),评估了 9 种食物来源(含糖饮料 [SSB]、加糖乳制品、100% 果汁、水果、干果、糖果、添加的营养甜味剂、加糖谷物/bars 和混合源)跨越 4 个能量控制级别。 [2] nan [3]
100 % fruit 100% 水果
We included 48 trials (109 trial comparisons, n = 2108) assessing the effect of 10 food sources (SSBs, sweetened dairy, sweetened dairy alternatives (soy), fruit, 100% fruit juice, dried fruit, sweetened cereal grains/bars, sweets, added nutritive sweetener, and mixed sources) across the 4 levels of energy control. [1]我们纳入了 48 项试验(109 项试验比较,n = 2108),评估 10 种食物来源(SSB、甜乳制品、甜乳制品替代品(大豆)、水果、100% 果汁、干果、甜谷物/棒、糖果)的影响,添加营养甜味剂和混合来源)跨越 4 个能量控制级别。 [1]
fruit juice fruit 果汁水果
(NCT02558920) We identified 119 controlled trials (368 trial comparisons, N = 5263) assessing the effect of 10 food sources (SSBs, sweetened dairy alternative (soy), fruit juice, fruit drink, fruit, dried fruit, sweetened cereal grains/bars, sweets, added sweeteners and mixed sources). [1](NCT02558920) 我们确定了 119 项对照试验(368 项试验比较,N = 5263),评估 10 种食物来源(SSB、加糖乳制品(大豆)、果汁、果汁饮料、水果、干果、加糖谷物/棒、糖果、添加甜味剂和混合来源)。 [1]
Eligible Trial Comparison
RESULTS We identified 13 eligible trial comparisons, of which 2 were randomized controlled trials and 11 cohort study. [1] RESULTS We identified 28 eligible trial comparisons (n = 1,394). [2]结果 我们确定了 13 项符合条件的试验比较,其中 2 项是随机对照试验和 11 项队列研究。 [1] 结果 我们确定了 28 项符合条件的试验比较(n = 1,394)。 [2]
Included Trial Comparison
For instance, the studies in the references 27 [2], 28 [3], and 29 [4], included for the characteristics of included trial comparisons, were conducted by the same group of authors, the participants are from the same country, and have the same number of participants. [1] For instance, the studies in the references 27 and 28 included for the characteristics of included trial comparisons, were conducted by the same group of authors, the participants are from the same country, have the same number of participants. [2]例如,参考文献 27 [2]、28 [3] 和 29 [4] 中的研究,包括纳入试验比较的特征,由同一组作者进行,参与者来自同一国家,并且有相同数量的参与者。 [1] 例如,参考文献 27 和 28 中纳入试验比较特征的研究由同一组作者进行,参与者来自同一国家,参与者人数相同。 [2]
Controlled Trial Comparison 对照试验比较
Randomized controlled trial comparison with parallel group design was chosen. [1] ABSTRACT Critics of electroconvulsive therapy argue that the treatment's efficacy is unproven by random controlled trial comparisons with sham treatments. [2]选择与平行组设计进行随机对照试验比较。 [1] 抽象的 电休克疗法的批评者认为,该疗法的疗效尚未通过随机对照试验与假疗法的比较得到证实。 [2]
29 Trial Comparison 29 试用比较
(PROSPERO identifier, CRD42015023580) We included 17 controlled trials (29 trial comparisons, n = 1073) assessing the effect of honey across two energy levels, substitution and addition. [1] Results 29 trial comparisons were identified in 1617 participants with type 1 and 2 diabetes who were predominantly middle aged, overweight, or obese with moderately controlled type 2 diabetes treated by hyperglycaemia drugs or insulin. [2](PROSPERO 标识符,CRD42015023580) 我们纳入了 17 项对照试验(29 项试验比较,n = 1073),评估蜂蜜对两个能量水平(替代和添加)的影响。 [1] 结果在 1617 名 1 型和 2 型糖尿病患者中进行了 29 项试验比较,这些参与者主要是中年、超重或肥胖,患有中度控制的 2 型糖尿病,接受高血糖药物或胰岛素治疗。 [2]