Cargando…

Dropouts in randomized clinical trials of Korean medicine interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The dropout rate is an important determinant of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and should be carefully controlled. This study explored the current dropout rate in studies of Korean medicine (KM) interventions by systematic evaluation of RCTs conducted in the past 10 year...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jeon, Sae-rom, Nam, Dongwoo, Kim, Tae-Hun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7923634/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33648566
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05114-x
_version_ 1783658939229929472
author Jeon, Sae-rom
Nam, Dongwoo
Kim, Tae-Hun
author_facet Jeon, Sae-rom
Nam, Dongwoo
Kim, Tae-Hun
author_sort Jeon, Sae-rom
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The dropout rate is an important determinant of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and should be carefully controlled. This study explored the current dropout rate in studies of Korean medicine (KM) interventions by systematic evaluation of RCTs conducted in the past 10 years. METHODS: Three clinical trial registries (Clinical Research Information Service, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched to identify RCT protocols for KM interventions, such as acupuncture, herbal medicine, moxibustion, or cupping, and studies of mixed interventions, registered in Korea from 2009 to 2019. The PubMed, Embase, and OASIS databases were searched for the full reports of these RCTs, including published journal articles and theses. Dropout rates and the reasons for dropping out were analyzed in each report. The risk of bias in each of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The risk difference for dropping out between the treatment and control groups was calculated with the 95% confidence interval in a random effects model. RESULTS: Forty-nine published studies were included in the review. The median dropout rate was 10% in the treatment group (interquartile range 6.7%, 17.0%) and 14% in the control group (interquartile range 5.4%, 16.3%) and was highest in acupuncture studies (12%), followed by herbal medicine (10%), moxibustion (8%), and cupping (7%). Loss to follow-up was the most common reason for dropping out. The risk difference for dropping out between the intervention and control groups was estimated to be 0.01 (95% confidence interval − 0.02, 0.03) in KM intervention studies. CONCLUSIONS: This review found no significant difference in the dropout rate between studies according to the type of KM intervention. We recommend allowance for a minimum dropout rate of 15% in future RCTs of KM interventions. REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020141011 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05114-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7923634
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79236342021-03-02 Dropouts in randomized clinical trials of Korean medicine interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis Jeon, Sae-rom Nam, Dongwoo Kim, Tae-Hun Trials Review BACKGROUND: The dropout rate is an important determinant of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and should be carefully controlled. This study explored the current dropout rate in studies of Korean medicine (KM) interventions by systematic evaluation of RCTs conducted in the past 10 years. METHODS: Three clinical trial registries (Clinical Research Information Service, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched to identify RCT protocols for KM interventions, such as acupuncture, herbal medicine, moxibustion, or cupping, and studies of mixed interventions, registered in Korea from 2009 to 2019. The PubMed, Embase, and OASIS databases were searched for the full reports of these RCTs, including published journal articles and theses. Dropout rates and the reasons for dropping out were analyzed in each report. The risk of bias in each of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The risk difference for dropping out between the treatment and control groups was calculated with the 95% confidence interval in a random effects model. RESULTS: Forty-nine published studies were included in the review. The median dropout rate was 10% in the treatment group (interquartile range 6.7%, 17.0%) and 14% in the control group (interquartile range 5.4%, 16.3%) and was highest in acupuncture studies (12%), followed by herbal medicine (10%), moxibustion (8%), and cupping (7%). Loss to follow-up was the most common reason for dropping out. The risk difference for dropping out between the intervention and control groups was estimated to be 0.01 (95% confidence interval − 0.02, 0.03) in KM intervention studies. CONCLUSIONS: This review found no significant difference in the dropout rate between studies according to the type of KM intervention. We recommend allowance for a minimum dropout rate of 15% in future RCTs of KM interventions. REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020141011 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05114-x. BioMed Central 2021-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7923634/ /pubmed/33648566 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05114-x Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Review
Jeon, Sae-rom
Nam, Dongwoo
Kim, Tae-Hun
Dropouts in randomized clinical trials of Korean medicine interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Dropouts in randomized clinical trials of Korean medicine interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Dropouts in randomized clinical trials of Korean medicine interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Dropouts in randomized clinical trials of Korean medicine interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Dropouts in randomized clinical trials of Korean medicine interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Dropouts in randomized clinical trials of Korean medicine interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort dropouts in randomized clinical trials of korean medicine interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7923634/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33648566
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05114-x
work_keys_str_mv AT jeonsaerom dropoutsinrandomizedclinicaltrialsofkoreanmedicineinterventionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT namdongwoo dropoutsinrandomizedclinicaltrialsofkoreanmedicineinterventionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kimtaehun dropoutsinrandomizedclinicaltrialsofkoreanmedicineinterventionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis