15
个编辑
更改
跳到导航
跳到搜索
第5行：
第5行： − + 第40行：
第40行： + 第109行：
第110行： − − − − 第185行：
第182行： − 一项RCT的盲法是指阻止研究参与者、照顾者或结果评估者知道哪些干预措施，这一程序也称“蒙面”。2010年 CONSORT 声明明确指出，作者和编辑不应使用”单盲”、”双盲”和”三盲”等术语; 相反，关于盲法 RCT 的报告应讨论”如果完成了，干预分配后谁被“蒙面”了(例如，参与者、护理提供者、评估结果的人员)以及如何完成”“开放”，或者(如果干预是一种药物)“开放标签”。2008年的一项研究得出结论认为，只有当随机对照试验的结果是主观的而不是客观的时候，非盲法随机对照试验的结果往往偏向于有益的结果; 在实用的随机对照试验中，尽管参与者和提供者往往是非盲的，但是”仍然需要并且往往可能使评估者“蒙面”，以获得评估结果的客观数据来源”以及其他方法。+ + + + + + + + + + 第191行：
第197行： − + − + 第207行：
第213行： − + 第217行：
第223行： − 2000年发表在《新英格兰医学杂志》上的两项研究发现，观察性研究和随机对照试验总体产生了类似的结果。2000年研究结果的作者质疑“观察性研究不应该被用来定义循证医疗保健”的信念，以及随机对照试验的结果是“最高等级的证据”+ 第244行：
第250行： + 第330行：
第337行： + 第343行：
第351行： −
→Randomization
[[File:Flowchart of Phases of Parallel Randomized Trial - Modified from CONSORT 2010.png|thumb|upright=1.5|Flowchart of four phases (enrollment, allocation, intervention, follow-up, and data analysis) of a parallel randomized trial of two groups (in a controlled trial, one of the interventions serves as the control), modified from the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 2010 Statement<ref name="Schulz-2010">{{Cite journal | author = Schulz KF, Altman DG, ((Moher D; for the CONSORT Group)) | title = CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials | journal = [[Br Med J]] | volume = 340 | pages = c332 | year = 2010 | doi = 10.1136/bmj.c332 | pmid = 20332509 | pmc = 2844940 }}</ref>|链接=Special:FilePath/Flowchart_of_Phases_of_Parallel_Randomized_Trial_-_Modified_from_CONSORT_2010.png]]
[[File:Flowchart of Phases of Parallel Randomized Trial - Modified from CONSORT 2010.png|thumb|upright=1.5|Flowchart of four phases (enrollment, allocation, intervention, follow-up, and data analysis) of a parallel randomized trial of two groups (in a controlled trial, one of the interventions serves as the control), modified from the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 2010 Statement<ref name="Schulz-2010">{{Cite journal | author = Schulz KF, Altman DG, ((Moher D; for the CONSORT Group)) | title = CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials | journal = [[Br Med J]] | volume = 340 | pages = c332 | year = 2010 | doi = 10.1136/bmj.c332 | pmid = 20332509 | pmc = 2844940 }}</ref>|链接=Special:FilePath/Flowchart_of_Phases_of_Parallel_Randomized_Trial_-_Modified_from_CONSORT_2010.png]]
Flowchart of four phases (enrollment, allocation, intervention, follow-up, and data analysis) of a parallel randomized trial of two groups (in a controlled trial, one of the interventions serves as the control), modified from the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 2010 Statement.
[来源：图片] Flowchart of four phases (enrollment, allocation, intervention, follow-up, and data analysis) of a parallel randomized trial of two groups (in a controlled trial, one of the interventions serves as the control), modified from the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 2010 Statement.
据修改的2010年CONSORT (综合报告试验标准)要求，流程图包括：两组平行随机试验分为登记、分配、干预、随访和数据分析四个阶段，在对照试验中，需要其中一项干预作为对照处理措施。
据修改的2010年CONSORT (综合报告试验标准)要求，流程图包括：两组平行随机试验分为登记、分配、干预、随访和数据分析四个阶段，在对照试验中，需要其中一项干预作为对照处理措施。
一个良好盲法的 RCT 通常被认为是临床试验的黄金标准。盲法随机对照试验通常用于检测医疗干预措施的效果，并且还可能提供关于药物反应等不良反应的信息。随机对照试验可以提供令人信服的证据，证明研究治疗对人类健康产生了影响。
一个良好盲法的 RCT 通常被认为是临床试验的黄金标准。盲法随机对照试验通常用于检测医疗干预措施的效果，并且还可能提供关于药物反应等不良反应的信息。随机对照试验可以提供令人信服的证据，证明研究治疗对人类健康产生了影响。
2004年， 医学杂志编辑国际委员会(ICMJE)宣布，所有在2005年7月1日之后考虑在该委员会12种杂志上发表之前，必须对试验进行注册。尽管如此，试验登记可能仍然延迟或根本不会发生。
2004年， 医学杂志编辑国际委员会(ICMJE)宣布，所有在2005年7月1日之后考虑在该委员会12种杂志上发表之前，必须对试验进行注册。尽管如此，试验登记可能仍然延迟或根本不会发生。
Medical journals have been slow in adapting policies requiring mandatory clinical trial registration as a prerequisite for publication.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bhaumik|first1=S|title=Editorial policies of MEDLINE indexed Indian journals on clinical trial registration.|journal=Indian Pediatr.|date=Mar 2013|volume=50|issue=3|pages=339–40|pmid=23680610|doi=10.1007/s13312-013-0092-2|s2cid=40317464}}</ref>
Medical journals have been slow in adapting policies requiring mandatory clinical trial registration as a prerequisite for publication.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bhaumik|first1=S|title=Editorial policies of MEDLINE indexed Indian journals on clinical trial registration.|journal=Indian Pediatr.|date=Mar 2013|volume=50|issue=3|pages=339–40|pmid=23680610|doi=10.1007/s13312-013-0092-2|s2cid=40317464}}</ref>
Medical journals have been slow in adapting policies requiring mandatory clinical trial registration as a prerequisite for publication.
Medical journals have been slow in adapting policies requiring mandatory clinical trial registration as a prerequisite for publication.
An RCT may be blinded, (also called "masked") by "procedures that prevent study participants, caregivers, or outcome assessors from knowing which intervention was received." The 2010 CONSORT Statement specifies that authors and editors should not use the terms "single-blind", "double-blind", and "triple-blind"; instead, reports of blinded RCT should discuss "If done, who was blinded after assignment to interventions (for example, participants, care providers, those assessing outcomes) and how." "open", or (if the intervention is a medication) "open-label". In 2008 a study concluded that the results of unblinded RCTs tended to be biased toward beneficial effects only if the RCTs' outcomes were subjective as opposed to objective; In pragmatic RCTs, although the participants and providers are often unblinded, it is "still desirable and often possible to blind the assessor or obtain an objective source of data for evaluation of outcomes.") and other methods can be used.
An RCT may be blinded, (also called "masked") by "procedures that prevent study participants, caregivers, or outcome assessors from knowing which intervention was received." The 2010 CONSORT Statement specifies that authors and editors should not use the terms "single-blind", "double-blind", and "triple-blind"; instead, reports of blinded RCT should discuss "If done, who was blinded after assignment to interventions (for example, participants, care providers, those assessing outcomes) and how." "open", or (if the intervention is a medication) "open-label". In 2008 a study concluded that the results of unblinded RCTs tended to be biased toward beneficial effects only if the RCTs' outcomes were subjective as opposed to objective; In pragmatic RCTs, although the participants and providers are often unblinded, it is "still desirable and often possible to blind the assessor or obtain an objective source of data for evaluation of outcomes.") and other methods can be used.
随机对照试验中适当随机化的优点包括：
* 它消除了治疗分配中的偏差，特别是选择偏差和混淆。
* 它便于调查人员、参与者和评估人员对治疗人群的身份进行遮蔽。
* 它允许使用概率理论来表达这样一种可能性，即治疗组之间结果的任何差异仅仅表明是偶然性的。
一项RCT的盲法是指阻止研究参与者、照顾者或结果评估者知道哪些干预措施，这一程序也称“蒙面”。2010年CONSORT 声明明确指出，作者和编辑不应使用”单盲”、”双盲”和”三盲”等术语；相反，关于盲法 RCT 的报告应讨论”如果完成了，干预分配后谁被“蒙面”了(例如，参与者、护理提供者、评估结果的人员)以及如何完成”“开放”，或者(如果干预是一种药物)“开放标签”。2008年的一项研究得出结论认为，只有当随机对照试验的结果是主观的而不是客观的时候，非盲法随机对照试验的结果往往偏向于有益的结果；在实用的随机对照试验中，尽管参与者和提供者往往是非盲的，但是”仍然需要并且往往可能使评估者“蒙面”，以获得评估结果的客观数据来源”以及其他方法。
There are two processes involved in randomizing patients to different interventions. First is choosing a ''randomization procedure'' to generate an unpredictable sequence of allocations; this may be a simple random assignment of patients to any of the groups at equal probabilities, may be "restricted", or may be "adaptive." A second and more practical issue is ''allocation concealment'', which refers to the stringent precautions taken to ensure that the group assignment of patients are not revealed prior to definitively allocating them to their respective groups. Non-random "systematic" methods of group assignment, such as alternating subjects between one group and the other, can cause "limitless contamination possibilities" and can cause a breach of allocation concealment.<ref name="Schulz-2002"/>
There are two processes involved in randomizing patients to different interventions. First is choosing a ''randomization procedure'' to generate an unpredictable sequence of allocations; this may be a simple random assignment of patients to any of the groups at equal probabilities, may be "restricted", or may be "adaptive." A second and more practical issue is ''allocation concealment'', which refers to the stringent precautions taken to ensure that the group assignment of patients are not revealed prior to definitively allocating them to their respective groups. Non-random "systematic" methods of group assignment, such as alternating subjects between one group and the other, can cause "limitless contamination possibilities" and can cause a breach of allocation concealment.<ref name="Schulz-2002"/>
将患者随机分配到不同的干预措施中涉及两个过程。首先是选择一个随机化程序来生成一个不可预测的分配序列；这可能是以相等的概率将患者随机分配到任何一组，可能是“受限的”，也可能是“适应性的”。第二个也是更实际的问题是隐藏分配，这是指在将患者明确分配到各自的组之前，采取严格的预防措施，以确保患者的组分配不被披露。非随机的“系统”组分配方法，如在一个组和另一个组之间交替患者，可能会造成“无限的污染可能性”，并可能导致分配隐藏的破坏。
However empirical evidence that adequate randomization changes outcomes relative to inadequate randomization has been difficult to detect.<ref name="Howick-2014">{{Cite journal |vauthors=Howick J, Mebius A | title = In search of justification for the unpredictability paradox | journal = Trials | volume = 15 | pages = 480 | year = 2014 | doi = 10.1186/1745-6215-15-480 | pmid = 25490908 | pmc=4295227}}</ref>
However empirical evidence that adequate randomization changes outcomes relative to inadequate randomization has been difficult to detect.<ref name="Howick-2014">{{Cite journal |vauthors=Howick J, Mebius A | title = In search of justification for the unpredictability paradox | journal = Trials | volume = 15 | pages = 480 | year = 2014 | doi = 10.1186/1745-6215-15-480 | pmid = 25490908 | pmc=4295227}}</ref>
然而，相对于不充分随机化，充分随机化改变结果的经验证据很难被发现。
Regardless of the statistical methods used, important considerations in the analysis of RCT data include:
Regardless of the statistical methods used, important considerations in the analysis of RCT data include:
The treatment allocation is the desired proportion of patients in each treatment arm.
The treatment allocation is the desired proportion of patients in each treatment arm.
治疗分配是每个治疗组中患者的期望比例。
An ideal randomization procedure would achieve the following goals:<ref name="Lachin-1988a">{{Cite journal | author = Lachin JM | title = Statistical properties of randomization in clinical trials | journal = [[Controlled Clinical Trials]] | volume = 9 | issue = 4 | pages = 289–311 | year = 1988 | pmid = 3060315 | doi = 10.1016/0197-2456(88)90045-1 }}</ref>
An ideal randomization procedure would achieve the following goals:<ref name="Lachin-1988a">{{Cite journal | author = Lachin JM | title = Statistical properties of randomization in clinical trials | journal = [[Controlled Clinical Trials]] | volume = 9 | issue = 4 | pages = 289–311 | year = 1988 | pmid = 3060315 | doi = 10.1016/0197-2456(88)90045-1 }}</ref>
Two studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2000 found that observational studies and RCTs overall produced similar results. The authors of the 2000 findings questioned the belief that "observational studies should not be used for defining evidence-based medical care" and that RCTs' results are "evidence of the highest grade."
Two studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2000 found that observational studies and RCTs overall produced similar results. The authors of the 2000 findings questioned the belief that "observational studies should not be used for defining evidence-based medical care" and that RCTs' results are "evidence of the highest grade."
2000年发表在《新英格兰医学杂志》上的两项研究发现，观察性研究和随机对照试验总体产生了类似的结果。2000年研究结果的作者质疑“观察性研究不应该被用来定义循证医疗保健”的信念，以及随机对照试验的结果是“最高等级的证据”的观点。
* '''Maximize [[statistical power]]''', especially in [[Subgroup analysis|subgroup analyses]]. Generally, equal group sizes maximize statistical power, however, unequal groups sizes may be more powerful for some analyses (e.g., multiple comparisons of placebo versus several doses using Dunnett's procedure<ref>{{cite web|last=Rosenberger|first=James|title=STAT 503 - Design of Experiments|url=https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat503/node/16|publisher=Pennsylvania State University|access-date=24 September 2012}}</ref> ), and are sometimes desired for non-analytic reasons (e.g., patients may be more motivated to enroll if there is a higher chance of getting the test treatment, or regulatory agencies may require a minimum number of patients exposed to treatment).<ref name="Avins-1998">{{cite journal|last=Avins|first=A L|title="Can unequal be more fair? Ethics, subject allocation, and randomized clinical trials".|journal=J Med Ethics|year=1998|volume=24|pages=401–408|doi=10.1136/jme.24.6.401|issue=6|pmc=479141|pmid=9873981}}</ref>
* '''Maximize [[statistical power]]''', especially in [[Subgroup analysis|subgroup analyses]]. Generally, equal group sizes maximize statistical power, however, unequal groups sizes may be more powerful for some analyses (e.g., multiple comparisons of placebo versus several doses using Dunnett's procedure<ref>{{cite web|last=Rosenberger|first=James|title=STAT 503 - Design of Experiments|url=https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat503/node/16|publisher=Pennsylvania State University|access-date=24 September 2012}}</ref> ), and are sometimes desired for non-analytic reasons (e.g., patients may be more motivated to enroll if there is a higher chance of getting the test treatment, or regulatory agencies may require a minimum number of patients exposed to treatment).<ref name="Avins-1998">{{cite journal|last=Avins|first=A L|title="Can unequal be more fair? Ethics, subject allocation, and randomized clinical trials".|journal=J Med Ethics|year=1998|volume=24|pages=401–408|doi=10.1136/jme.24.6.401|issue=6|pmc=479141|pmid=9873981}}</ref>
This is a commonly used and intuitive procedure, similar to "repeated fair coin-tossing."<ref name="SchulzGrimes2002"/> Also known as "complete" or "unrestricted" randomization, it is [[Robust statistics|robust]] against both selection and accidental biases. However, its main drawback is the possibility of imbalanced group sizes in small RCTs. It is therefore recommended only for RCTs with over 200 subjects.<ref name="Lachin-1988b">{{Cite journal |vauthors=Lachin JM, Matts JP, Wei LJ | title = Randomization in clinical trials: conclusions and recommendations | journal = [[Controlled Clinical Trials]] | volume = 9 | issue = 4 | pages = 365–74 | year = 1988 | pmid = 3203526 | doi = 10.1016/0197-2456(88)90049-9 | hdl = 2027.42/27041 | url = https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/27041/1/0000029.pdf | hdl-access = free }}</ref>
This is a commonly used and intuitive procedure, similar to "repeated fair coin-tossing."<ref name="SchulzGrimes2002"/> Also known as "complete" or "unrestricted" randomization, it is [[Robust statistics|robust]] against both selection and accidental biases. However, its main drawback is the possibility of imbalanced group sizes in small RCTs. It is therefore recommended only for RCTs with over 200 subjects.<ref name="Lachin-1988b">{{Cite journal |vauthors=Lachin JM, Matts JP, Wei LJ | title = Randomization in clinical trials: conclusions and recommendations | journal = [[Controlled Clinical Trials]] | volume = 9 | issue = 4 | pages = 365–74 | year = 1988 | pmid = 3203526 | doi = 10.1016/0197-2456(88)90049-9 | hdl = 2027.42/27041 | url = https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/27041/1/0000029.pdf | hdl-access = free }}</ref>
如果医学技术领域出现颠覆性创新，在RCT中，对照组的结果变得“明显”—－即对照组出现明显差的结局。这要么由于其他的前述测试，要么是在 RCT 本身的初始阶段， 那么在 RCT 中很难从伦理上检验这一点。从伦理上讲，过早地中止 RCT 可能是必要的，而在未来的 RCT 中，获得伦理批准(以及患者同意)以阻止控制组的创新可能是不可行的。
如果医学技术领域出现颠覆性创新，在RCT中，对照组的结果变得“明显”—－即对照组出现明显差的结局。这要么由于其他的前述测试，要么是在 RCT 本身的初始阶段， 那么在 RCT 中很难从伦理上检验这一点。从伦理上讲，过早地中止 RCT 可能是必要的，而在未来的 RCT 中，获得伦理批准(以及患者同意)以阻止控制组的创新可能是不可行的。
== Analysis of data ==
== Analysis of data ==
The types of statistical methods used in RCTs depend on the characteristics of the data and include:
The types of statistical methods used in RCTs depend on the characteristics of the data and include: