Cargando…

Clinical drug trials in general practice: how well are external validity issues reported?

BACKGROUND: When reading a report of a clinical trial, it should be possible to judge whether the results are relevant for your patients. Issues affecting the external validity or generalizability of a trial should therefore be reported. Our aim was to determine whether articles with published resul...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brænd, Anja Maria, Straand, Jørund, Klovning, Atle
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5746953/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29284407
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-017-0680-7
_version_ 1783289204975861760
author Brænd, Anja Maria
Straand, Jørund
Klovning, Atle
author_facet Brænd, Anja Maria
Straand, Jørund
Klovning, Atle
author_sort Brænd, Anja Maria
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: When reading a report of a clinical trial, it should be possible to judge whether the results are relevant for your patients. Issues affecting the external validity or generalizability of a trial should therefore be reported. Our aim was to determine whether articles with published results from a complete cohort of drug trials conducted entirely or partly in general practice reported sufficient information about the trials to consider the external validity. METHODS: A cohort of 196 drug trials in Norwegian general practice was previously identified from the Norwegian Medicines Agency archive with year of application for approval 1998–2007. After comprehensive literature searches, 134 journal articles reporting results published from 2000 to 2015 were identified. In these articles, we considered the reporting of the following issues relevant for external validity: reporting of the clinical setting; selection of patients before inclusion in a trial; reporting of patients’ co-morbidity, co-medication or ethnicity; choice of primary outcome; and reporting of adverse events. RESULTS: Of these 134 articles, only 30 (22%) reported the clinical setting of the trial. The number of patients screened before enrolment was reported in 61 articles (46%). The primary outcome of the trial was a surrogate outcome for 60 trials (45%), a clinical outcome for 39 (29%) and a patient-reported outcome for 25 (19%). Clinical details of adverse events were reported in 124 (93%) articles. Co-morbidity of included participants was reported in 54 trials (40%), co-medication in 27 (20%) and race/ethnicity in 78 (58%). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical setting of the trials, the selection of patients before enrolment, and co-morbidity or co-medication of participants was most commonly not reported, limiting the possibility to consider the generalizability of a trial. It may therefore be difficult for readers to judge whether drug trial results are applicable to clinical decision-making in general practice or when developing clinical guidelines.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5746953
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57469532018-01-03 Clinical drug trials in general practice: how well are external validity issues reported? Brænd, Anja Maria Straand, Jørund Klovning, Atle BMC Fam Pract Research Article BACKGROUND: When reading a report of a clinical trial, it should be possible to judge whether the results are relevant for your patients. Issues affecting the external validity or generalizability of a trial should therefore be reported. Our aim was to determine whether articles with published results from a complete cohort of drug trials conducted entirely or partly in general practice reported sufficient information about the trials to consider the external validity. METHODS: A cohort of 196 drug trials in Norwegian general practice was previously identified from the Norwegian Medicines Agency archive with year of application for approval 1998–2007. After comprehensive literature searches, 134 journal articles reporting results published from 2000 to 2015 were identified. In these articles, we considered the reporting of the following issues relevant for external validity: reporting of the clinical setting; selection of patients before inclusion in a trial; reporting of patients’ co-morbidity, co-medication or ethnicity; choice of primary outcome; and reporting of adverse events. RESULTS: Of these 134 articles, only 30 (22%) reported the clinical setting of the trial. The number of patients screened before enrolment was reported in 61 articles (46%). The primary outcome of the trial was a surrogate outcome for 60 trials (45%), a clinical outcome for 39 (29%) and a patient-reported outcome for 25 (19%). Clinical details of adverse events were reported in 124 (93%) articles. Co-morbidity of included participants was reported in 54 trials (40%), co-medication in 27 (20%) and race/ethnicity in 78 (58%). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical setting of the trials, the selection of patients before enrolment, and co-morbidity or co-medication of participants was most commonly not reported, limiting the possibility to consider the generalizability of a trial. It may therefore be difficult for readers to judge whether drug trial results are applicable to clinical decision-making in general practice or when developing clinical guidelines. BioMed Central 2017-12-29 /pmc/articles/PMC5746953/ /pubmed/29284407 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-017-0680-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Brænd, Anja Maria
Straand, Jørund
Klovning, Atle
Clinical drug trials in general practice: how well are external validity issues reported?
title Clinical drug trials in general practice: how well are external validity issues reported?
title_full Clinical drug trials in general practice: how well are external validity issues reported?
title_fullStr Clinical drug trials in general practice: how well are external validity issues reported?
title_full_unstemmed Clinical drug trials in general practice: how well are external validity issues reported?
title_short Clinical drug trials in general practice: how well are external validity issues reported?
title_sort clinical drug trials in general practice: how well are external validity issues reported?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5746953/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29284407
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12875-017-0680-7
work_keys_str_mv AT brændanjamaria clinicaldrugtrialsingeneralpracticehowwellareexternalvalidityissuesreported
AT straandjørund clinicaldrugtrialsingeneralpracticehowwellareexternalvalidityissuesreported
AT klovningatle clinicaldrugtrialsingeneralpracticehowwellareexternalvalidityissuesreported