S101 Methods for assessing the success or failure of COPD exacerbation treatments in therapeutic clinical trials: A meta-epidemiological systematic review
Rattachement africain : gb, au, hu, dk. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Introduction The overall outcome of a COPD exacerbation (treatment success or failure) is a critical outcome for clinical trials evaluating the management of COPD exacerbations. However, trials use heterogeneous definitions and instruments to evaluate this outcome, limiting the comparability of trial results. Here, we describe how often different measurement instruments are used to evaluate the overall outcome of COPD exacerbations, aiming to promote consistency. Methods MEDLINE and the Cochrane Airways Trial Register were systemically searched. COPD exacerbation trials (2006–2020) reporting on treatment success or failure were included. Risk of bias was assessed. The definitions and measurement instruments used to assess treatment success/failure were collected and described narratively. Results 56/176 (31.8%) of COPD exacerbation trials assessed the overall outcome of the exacerbation (treatment success or failure). 9/56 (16.1%) of studies had a low risk of methodological bias. Two categories of outcomes evaluating treatment success or failure were identified. Twenty-four RCTs used composite endpoints consisting of several undesirable outcomes to define treatment failure. The most frequently used components were death (59%), hospital admission (52%), treatment intensification (52%) or mechanical ventilation (37%). By comparison, thirty-three RCTs used qualitative descriptions of the status of the exacerbation (such as cure, improvement or failure), which were based on the patients’ symptoms and signs (table 1). The overall outcome was evaluated at different timepoints, between 2 hours and 1 year from presentation. Conclusions There is significant heterogeneity in the instruments used to evaluate treatment success or failure in COPD exacerbation trials. Standardization could promote comparability.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- S101 Methods for assessing the success or failure of COPD exacerbation treatments in therapeutic clinical trials: A meta-epidemiological systematic review
- Date Crossref
- 01/11/2021
- Éditeur
- BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Thoracic Society
- Type
- proceedings-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Où se fait cette recherche
-
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
University of Manchester pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
UNSW Sydney pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Semmelweis University pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
University of Liverpool pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
University of Copenhagen pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Gentofte Hospital pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
University of New South Wales pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Lewis Katz School of Medicine pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester et Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, avec 8 autres affiliations.
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.