Cargando…

Assessing the uncertainty of treatment outcomes in a previous systematic review of venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials: Additional secondary analysis

In this secondary analysis of a previous systematic review, we assessed randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments of venous leg ulcers in terms of factors that affect risk of bias at the study level and thus uncertainty of outcomes obtained from the interventions. Articles that assessed the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Eckert, Kristen A., Carter, Marissa J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7986240/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33556200
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12897
_version_ 1783668406397960192
author Eckert, Kristen A.
Carter, Marissa J.
author_facet Eckert, Kristen A.
Carter, Marissa J.
author_sort Eckert, Kristen A.
collection PubMed
description In this secondary analysis of a previous systematic review, we assessed randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments of venous leg ulcers in terms of factors that affect risk of bias at the study level and thus uncertainty of outcomes obtained from the interventions. Articles that assessed the wound bed condition in venous leg ulcers and that were published in English between 1998 and May 22, 2018 were previously searched in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Scopus, Science Direct, and Web of Science. Duplicates and retracted articles were excluded. The following data were extracted to assess the risk of bias: treatment groups; primary and secondary endpoints that were statistically tested between groups, including their results and p values; whether blinding of patients and assessors was done; whether allocation concealment was adequate; whether an intention‐to‐treat analysis was conducted; whether an appropriate power calculation was correctly done; and whether an appropriate multiplicity adjustment was made, as necessary. Pre‐ and post‐study power calculations were made. The step‐up Hochberg procedure adjusted for multiplicity. Results were analysed for all studies, pre‐2013 studies, and 2013/post‐2013 studies. We included 142 randomized controlled trials that evaluated 14,141 patients. Most studies lacked blinding (72.5–77.5%) and allocation concealment (88.7%). Only 49.3% of trials provided a power calculation, with 27.5% having an appropriate calculation correctly done. Adequate statistical power of the primary endpoint was found in 27.2% of trials. The lack of multiplicity adjustment in 98.6% of studies affected the uncertainty of outcomes in 20% of studies, with the majority of the secondary endpoints (67.7%) in those studies becoming non‐significant after multiplicity adjustment. Recent studies tended to weakly demonstrate improved certainty of outcomes. Venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials have a high degree of uncertainty associated with treatment outcomes. Greater attention to trial design and conduct is needed to improve the evidence base.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7986240
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79862402021-03-25 Assessing the uncertainty of treatment outcomes in a previous systematic review of venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials: Additional secondary analysis Eckert, Kristen A. Carter, Marissa J. Wound Repair Regen Original Research‐Clinical Science In this secondary analysis of a previous systematic review, we assessed randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments of venous leg ulcers in terms of factors that affect risk of bias at the study level and thus uncertainty of outcomes obtained from the interventions. Articles that assessed the wound bed condition in venous leg ulcers and that were published in English between 1998 and May 22, 2018 were previously searched in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Scopus, Science Direct, and Web of Science. Duplicates and retracted articles were excluded. The following data were extracted to assess the risk of bias: treatment groups; primary and secondary endpoints that were statistically tested between groups, including their results and p values; whether blinding of patients and assessors was done; whether allocation concealment was adequate; whether an intention‐to‐treat analysis was conducted; whether an appropriate power calculation was correctly done; and whether an appropriate multiplicity adjustment was made, as necessary. Pre‐ and post‐study power calculations were made. The step‐up Hochberg procedure adjusted for multiplicity. Results were analysed for all studies, pre‐2013 studies, and 2013/post‐2013 studies. We included 142 randomized controlled trials that evaluated 14,141 patients. Most studies lacked blinding (72.5–77.5%) and allocation concealment (88.7%). Only 49.3% of trials provided a power calculation, with 27.5% having an appropriate calculation correctly done. Adequate statistical power of the primary endpoint was found in 27.2% of trials. The lack of multiplicity adjustment in 98.6% of studies affected the uncertainty of outcomes in 20% of studies, with the majority of the secondary endpoints (67.7%) in those studies becoming non‐significant after multiplicity adjustment. Recent studies tended to weakly demonstrate improved certainty of outcomes. Venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials have a high degree of uncertainty associated with treatment outcomes. Greater attention to trial design and conduct is needed to improve the evidence base. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021-02-08 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC7986240/ /pubmed/33556200 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12897 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Wound Repair and Regeneration published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Wound Healing Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research‐Clinical Science
Eckert, Kristen A.
Carter, Marissa J.
Assessing the uncertainty of treatment outcomes in a previous systematic review of venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials: Additional secondary analysis
title Assessing the uncertainty of treatment outcomes in a previous systematic review of venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials: Additional secondary analysis
title_full Assessing the uncertainty of treatment outcomes in a previous systematic review of venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials: Additional secondary analysis
title_fullStr Assessing the uncertainty of treatment outcomes in a previous systematic review of venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials: Additional secondary analysis
title_full_unstemmed Assessing the uncertainty of treatment outcomes in a previous systematic review of venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials: Additional secondary analysis
title_short Assessing the uncertainty of treatment outcomes in a previous systematic review of venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials: Additional secondary analysis
title_sort assessing the uncertainty of treatment outcomes in a previous systematic review of venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials: additional secondary analysis
topic Original Research‐Clinical Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7986240/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33556200
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12897
work_keys_str_mv AT eckertkristena assessingtheuncertaintyoftreatmentoutcomesinaprevioussystematicreviewofvenouslegulcerrandomizedcontrolledtrialsadditionalsecondaryanalysis
AT cartermarissaj assessingtheuncertaintyoftreatmentoutcomesinaprevioussystematicreviewofvenouslegulcerrandomizedcontrolledtrialsadditionalsecondaryanalysis