Cargando…

Exclusion rates in randomized controlled trials of treatments for physical conditions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: The generalisability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be uncertain because the impact of exclusion criteria is rarely quantified. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies examining the percentage of clinical populations with a physical health condition who wou...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: He, Jinzhang, Morales, Daniel R., Guthrie, Bruce
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045589/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32102686
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-4139-0
_version_ 1783501807228551168
author He, Jinzhang
Morales, Daniel R.
Guthrie, Bruce
author_facet He, Jinzhang
Morales, Daniel R.
Guthrie, Bruce
author_sort He, Jinzhang
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The generalisability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be uncertain because the impact of exclusion criteria is rarely quantified. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies examining the percentage of clinical populations with a physical health condition who would be excluded by RCTs of treatments for that condition. METHODS: Medline and Embase were searched from inception to Feb 11th 2018. Two reviewers independently completed screening, full-text review, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients in the clinical population who would have been excluded from each examined trial. Subgroup analyses examined exclusion by population setting, publication date and funding source. RESULTS: Titles/abstracts (20,754) were screened, and 50 studies were included which reported exclusion rates from 305 trials of treatments in 31 physical conditions. Estimated rates of exclusion from trials varied from 0% to 100%, and the median exclusion rate was 77.1% of patients (interquartile range 55.5% to 89.0% exclusion). Median exclusion rates for trials in common chronic conditions were high, including hypertension 83.0%, type 2 diabetes 81.7%, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 84.3%, and asthma 96.0%. The most commonly applied exclusion criteria related to age, co-morbidity and co-prescribing, whereas more implicit criteria relating to life expectancy or functional status were not typically examined. There was no evidence that exclusion varied by the nature of the clinical population in which exclusion was evaluated or trial funding source. There was no statistically significant change in exclusion rates in more recent compared with older trials. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of trials of treatments for physical conditions examined excluded the majority of patients with the condition being treated. Almost a quarter of the trials studied excluded over 90% of patients, more than half of trials excluded at least three quarters of patients, and four out of five trials excluded at least half of patients. A limitation is that most studies applied only a subset of eligibility criteria, so exclusion rates are likely under-estimated. Exclusion from trials of older people and people with co-morbidity and co-prescribing is increasingly untenable given population aging and increasing multimorbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42016042282.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7045589
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70455892020-03-03 Exclusion rates in randomized controlled trials of treatments for physical conditions: a systematic review He, Jinzhang Morales, Daniel R. Guthrie, Bruce Trials Review BACKGROUND: The generalisability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be uncertain because the impact of exclusion criteria is rarely quantified. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies examining the percentage of clinical populations with a physical health condition who would be excluded by RCTs of treatments for that condition. METHODS: Medline and Embase were searched from inception to Feb 11th 2018. Two reviewers independently completed screening, full-text review, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients in the clinical population who would have been excluded from each examined trial. Subgroup analyses examined exclusion by population setting, publication date and funding source. RESULTS: Titles/abstracts (20,754) were screened, and 50 studies were included which reported exclusion rates from 305 trials of treatments in 31 physical conditions. Estimated rates of exclusion from trials varied from 0% to 100%, and the median exclusion rate was 77.1% of patients (interquartile range 55.5% to 89.0% exclusion). Median exclusion rates for trials in common chronic conditions were high, including hypertension 83.0%, type 2 diabetes 81.7%, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 84.3%, and asthma 96.0%. The most commonly applied exclusion criteria related to age, co-morbidity and co-prescribing, whereas more implicit criteria relating to life expectancy or functional status were not typically examined. There was no evidence that exclusion varied by the nature of the clinical population in which exclusion was evaluated or trial funding source. There was no statistically significant change in exclusion rates in more recent compared with older trials. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of trials of treatments for physical conditions examined excluded the majority of patients with the condition being treated. Almost a quarter of the trials studied excluded over 90% of patients, more than half of trials excluded at least three quarters of patients, and four out of five trials excluded at least half of patients. A limitation is that most studies applied only a subset of eligibility criteria, so exclusion rates are likely under-estimated. Exclusion from trials of older people and people with co-morbidity and co-prescribing is increasingly untenable given population aging and increasing multimorbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42016042282. BioMed Central 2020-02-26 /pmc/articles/PMC7045589/ /pubmed/32102686 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-4139-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 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 Review
He, Jinzhang
Morales, Daniel R.
Guthrie, Bruce
Exclusion rates in randomized controlled trials of treatments for physical conditions: a systematic review
title Exclusion rates in randomized controlled trials of treatments for physical conditions: a systematic review
title_full Exclusion rates in randomized controlled trials of treatments for physical conditions: a systematic review
title_fullStr Exclusion rates in randomized controlled trials of treatments for physical conditions: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Exclusion rates in randomized controlled trials of treatments for physical conditions: a systematic review
title_short Exclusion rates in randomized controlled trials of treatments for physical conditions: a systematic review
title_sort exclusion rates in randomized controlled trials of treatments for physical conditions: a systematic review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7045589/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32102686
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-4139-0
work_keys_str_mv AT hejinzhang exclusionratesinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsoftreatmentsforphysicalconditionsasystematicreview
AT moralesdanielr exclusionratesinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsoftreatmentsforphysicalconditionsasystematicreview
AT guthriebruce exclusionratesinrandomizedcontrolledtrialsoftreatmentsforphysicalconditionsasystematicreview