Impact of participant and physician intervention preferences on randomized trials - A systematic review

被引:216
作者
King, M
Nazareth, I
Lampe, F
Bower, P
Chandler, M
Morou, M
Sibbald, B
Lai, R
机构
[1] UCL Royal Free & Univ Coll Med Sch, Dept Mental Hlth Sci, London NW3 2PF, England
[2] UCL Royal Free & Univ Coll Med Sch, Dept Primary Care & Populat Sci, London NW3 2PF, England
[3] UCL Royal Free & Univ Coll Med Sch, Med Lib, London NW3 2PF, England
[4] Univ Manchester, Natl Primary Care Res & Dev Ctr, Manchester, Lancs, England
来源
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION | 2005年 / 293卷 / 09期
关键词
D O I
10.1001/jama.293.9.1089
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Context Allocation on the basis of randomization rather than patient choice is the gold standard of unbiased estimates of efficacy in clinical medicine. However, randomly allocating patients to treatments that do not accord with their preferences may influence internal and external validity. Objective To determine whether preferences affect recruitment to trials (external validity) and outcomes in trials (internal validity) Data Sources We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, AMED, and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 1966 and September 2004. We also hand-searched several major medical journals, searched reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted authors of published preference designs. The 2 themes in the first filter of the search strategy were preferences and possible determinants of preferences. Study Selection Comprehensive cohorts and 2-stage trials that measured or recorded patient or physician preference, included allocation of participants to random and preference cohorts, and followed up all participants. We excluded trials with no recording of preference; of decision aids; with measurements of preferences for economic analyses; in which patients who refused randomization were followed up without reference to preferences; and of nonclinical populations. Data Extraction Up to 4 reviewers independently evaluated the articles, and disagreements were resolved at project steering group meetings. We extracted data on study design, measurement of preference, recruitment, attrition, and summary data on the primary outcome(s) at baseline and each follow-up point. Data Synthesis Of 10023 citations identified, 170 articles met screening criteria and 32 (27 comprehensive cohorts and 5 two-stage trials) were determined to be eligible and were used in the final review. Although treatment preferences led to a substantial proportion of people refusing randomization, there was less evidence of bias in the characteristics of individuals agreeing to be randomized. Differences in outcome across the trials between randomized and preference groups were generally small, particularly in large trials and after accounting for baseline measures of outcome. Therefore, there was little evidence that preferences substantially interfere with the internal validity of randomized trials. Conclusions Preferences influence whether people participate in randomized trials, but there is little evidence that they significantly affect validity.
引用
收藏
页码:1089 / 1099
页数:11
相关论文
共 55 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1984, J AM COLL CARDIOL, V3, P114
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2000, HEALTH TECHNOL ASSES
[3]   A randomized comparison of medical abortion and surgical vacuum aspiration at 10-13 weeks gestation [J].
Ashok, PW ;
Kidd, A ;
Flett, GMM ;
Fitzmaurice, A ;
Graham, W ;
Templeton, A .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2002, 17 (01) :92-98
[4]   A partially randomized patient preference trial of microwave endometrial ablation using local anaesthesia and intravenous sedation or general anaesthesia: a pilot study [J].
Bain, C ;
Cooper, KG ;
Parkin, DE .
GYNAECOLOGICAL ENDOSCOPY, 2001, 10 (04) :223-228
[5]   Paroxetine, clomipramine, and cognitive therapy in the treatment of panic disorder [J].
Bakker, A ;
van Dyck, R ;
Spinhoven, P ;
van Balkom, AJLM .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY, 1999, 60 (12) :831-838
[6]   Assessing effectiveness of treatment of depression in primary care - Partially randomised preference trial [J].
Bedi, N ;
Chilvers, C ;
Churchill, R ;
Dewey, M ;
Duggan, C ;
Fielding, K ;
Gretton, V ;
Miller, P ;
Harrison, G ;
Lee, A ;
Williams, I .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 2000, 177 :312-318
[7]   A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. [J].
Benson, K ;
Hartz, AJ .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2000, 342 (25) :1878-1886
[8]   Randomised controlled trial of non-directive counselling, cognitive-behaviour therapy, and usual general practitioner care for patients with depression. II: Cost effectiveness [J].
Bower, P ;
Byford, S ;
Sibbald, B ;
Ward, E ;
King, M ;
Lloyd, R ;
Gabbay, M .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2000, 321 (7273) :1389-1392
[9]   PATIENT PREFERENCES AND RANDOMIZED CLINICAL-TRIALS [J].
BREWIN, CR ;
BRADLEY, C .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1989, 299 (6694) :313-315
[10]   Antidepressant drugs and generic counselling for treatment of major depression in primary care: randomised trial with patient preference arms [J].
Chilvers, C ;
Dewey, M ;
Fielding, K ;
Gretton, V ;
Miller, P ;
Palmer, B ;
Weller, D ;
Churchill, R ;
Williams, I ;
Bedi, N ;
Duggan, C ;
Lee, A ;
Harrison, G .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2001, 322 (7289) :772-775