1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa...
-
Upload
dane-kettlewell -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa...
![Page 1: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
![Page 2: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Levels of evidence
Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs
Ib Randomised trial
IIa Controlled non-randomised study
IIb Cohort study
III Case-control study
IV Descriptive study
Non-systematic review
Consensus report
Leading article
![Page 3: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Survey of 85 physicians (36% from internal medicine)”Very important” in influencing my prescribing
Own training and experience 88%
Scientific papers 62%
Advice from colleagues 48%
Detail men 20%
Drug adds 4%
Patient preference 2%
(Avorn J. Am J Med 1982;73:4-8)
![Page 4: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
”Is impaired cerebral blood flow a major cause of senile dementia?”
Yes 71%
No 14%
No opinion 15%
32% found cerebral vasodilators useful in managing confused geriatric patients
![Page 5: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Survey of 85 physicians (36% from internal medicine)”Very important” in influencing my prescribing
Own training and experience 88%
Scientific papers 62%
Advice from colleagues 48%
Detail men 20%
Drug adds 4%
Patient preference 2%
(Avorn J. Am J Med 1982;73:4-8)
![Page 6: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Drug adds
287 advertisements for anti-hypertensive or lipid-lowering drugs
- 125 promotional claims with references
- 23 refs. unretrievable (data on file, monographs)
- 45 of 102 claims not supported by reference
(Lancet 2003;361:27)
![Page 7: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Randomised trials
Unclear randomisation method:
- effect exaggerated by 30%, on average
No blinding:
- effect exaggerated by 14%, on average
(BMJ 2001;323:42-6)
![Page 8: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Outcome reporting bias
102 RCTs approved by the Copenhagen & Frederiksberg Ethics Review Committee 1994-95and subsequently published
Incompletely reported outcomes for meta-analysis:
50% for efficacy, 65% for safety
![Page 9: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Outcome reporting bias
Unreported outcomes 86% of trialists denied unreported outcomes despite evidence in publications & protocols
Only half of the trialists responded to the question
![Page 10: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Outcome reporting bias
Full outcome reporting is associated with p<0.05 Odds ratio 2.4 (1.4 - 4.0) for efficacyOdds ratio 4.7 (1.8 - 12) for safety
![Page 11: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Are primary outcomes consistent between protocols and publications?
Discrepancy in primary outcomesProportion (%) of trialswith inconsistencies
Changes to protocol-defined outcome 53% (40/76)
New publication-defined outcome 33% (21/63)
Change in power calculation outcome 29% (10/38)
ANY INCONSISTENCY 63% (52/82)
![Page 12: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Conclusions
Trial outcomes are often inadequately reported for inclusion in meta-analyses
Reporting of outcomes is biased to favour p<0.05
Primary outcomes are omitted, changed, or newly-introduced in over 60% of trials
Protocols should be publicly available
![Page 13: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
![Page 14: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
‘Positive’ studies are more likely to be published than ‘negative’ studies
Hazard ratio for 130 clinical trials
‘positive’ (P<0.05) vs ‘negative’ (P>0.10)
3.13 (1.76 to 5.58), P=0.0001 Median time to publication 4.7 vs 8 years
![Page 15: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Cochrane Reviews
Freely available from
www.cochrane.dk
![Page 16: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Based on Cochrane Reviews
when possible
![Page 17: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
NSAIDs
“Systematic reviews of RCTs have found no important differences in effect between different NSAIDs or doses but have found differences in toxicity related to increased doses and possibly to the nature of the NSAID itself.”
“The only meta-analysis that found one drug to be more effective than another was funded by the manufacturer”
Clinical Evidence 1999;2
![Page 18: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Clinical Evidence(NSAIDs)
We have favoured systematic reviews that have not been sponsored or authored by industry ...
it is easy to seemingly follow the rules for systematic reviews and yet adopt inclusion and exclusion criteria that omit inconvenient studies. In fact, it is hard to find a systematic review sponsored by, or co-authored by, industry that concludes that the company’s product is not better than those of its competitors.
![Page 19: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Celecoxib
Conclusion, industry supported meta-analysisCelecoxib ... has significantly improved gastrointestinal safety and tolerability (BMJ Sept 2002)
Conclusion, Cochrane ReviewFor an individual with RA the potential benefits of celecoxib need to be balanced against the uncertainty that the short-term reduced incidence of upper GI complications are maintained in the long-term and its increased cost in comparison to traditional NSAIDs.
![Page 20: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Industrisponsorerede forsøg med lægemidler
Ofte problemer med:• Design• Data-analyse• Afrapportering• Konklusion
![Page 21: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Forsøg med psykofarmaka
Gamle præparater:
- Alt for høj dosis, alt for hurtig dosisøgning.
Nye præparater tilsyneladende lige så gode,
med langt færre bivirkninger.
Men: udbredt manipulation med dosis, data-analyse og afrapportering.
(J Nerv Ment Dis 2002;190:583)
(BMJ 2003;326:1171)
![Page 22: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Behandling for skizofreni
Olanzapin 17.000 kr/år
Haloperidol 2.400 kr/år
Forbrug i primærsektoren
Olanzapin 216 mio kr i 2002
Haloperidol 4 mio kr i 2002
”the new drugs have no unequivocal advantages for first line use” (BMJ 2000;321:1371)
![Page 23: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Industrisponsoreret forskning versus offentligt sponsoreret forskning
Chancen for et positivt udfald 4 gange så stor for forsøg eller systematiske oversigter over flere forsøg.
(BMJ 2003;326:1167)
Chancen for en positiv konklusion 5 gange så stor for forsøg, trods samme effekt.
(JAMA 2003;290:921)
![Page 24: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Cochrane Reviews
![Page 25: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Hvilken forskning mangler vi?
- Sammenligninger med gamle, billige præparater, og på en fair måde (offentlig finansiering)
- Sammenligninger med andet end lægemidler
Forebyggelse af ikke-insulinkrævende sukkersyge:
- metformin: 31% effekt
- motion og vægttab: 56% effekt(N Engl J Med 2002;346:393)
- Forskning i skadevirkninger
![Page 26: 1. 2 Levels of evidence Ia Meta-analysis or systematic review of RCTs Ib Randomised trial IIa Controlled non-randomised study IIb Cohort study III Case-control.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062515/56649c6e5503460f949206e3/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26