Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials - visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT).

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Manuel Hecht, Anette Blümle, Harald Binder, Martin Schumacher, Nadine Binder
{"title":"Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials - visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT).","authors":"Manuel Hecht, Anette Blümle, Harald Binder, Martin Schumacher, Nadine Binder","doi":"10.1186/s12874-025-02535-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The goal of evidence-based medicine is to make clinical decisions based on the best available, relevant evidence. For this to be possible, studies such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which are widely considered to provide the best evidence of all forms of primary research, must be visible and have an impact on clinical practice guidelines. We further investigated the impact of publicly and commercially sponsored RCTs on clinical practice guidelines by measuring direct and indirect impactful citations and the time to guideline impact.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We considered the sample from the IMPACT study, where a total of 691 RCTs (120 German investigator-initiated trials (IITs), 200 international IITs, 171 German industry-sponsored trials (ISTs) and 200 international ISTs) was sampled from registries (DFG-/BMBF-Websites, the German Clinical Trials Register, and from ClinicalTrials.gov) and followed prospectively. First, all eligible IITs were sampled. Then, ISTs were randomly selected while ensuring balance across certain trial characteristics. Next, the corresponding publications in the form of original research articles were identified. A search was then conducted for (1) systematic reviews (SRs) citing these articles and (2) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that cited either the original articles or the SRs. The methods and results of this effort were already published. In this investigation we aimed to better characterize the impact of RCTs in CPGs. Therefore, we identified all citations of the original articles and SRs in the citing CPGs and classified them into impactful and non-impactful. This allowed us to calculate an estimate for the guideline impact of a trial. In addition, we estimated the time-to-guideline-impact, defined as the time to a direct and indirect impactful citation in a CPG. Direct means that the publication of a trial was cited in the main text of a CPG. Indirect means that the publication was cited and included in the findings of a SR and the SR was cited in the main text of a CPG. We also investigated to what extent pre-defined study characteristics influenced the guideline impact using multivariable negative binomial regression as well as the time-to-guideline impact using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 22% of RCTs impacted a CPG. For international ISTs, only 15% of trials had an impact in CPGs. Overall, of the 405 associated guidelines, 331 were impacted. Larger trials were associated with more impactful main text citations in CPGs and earlier time-to-guideline impact, while international industry-sponsored trials were associated with smaller impact on CPGs and longer time-to-guideline impact. IITs funded by governmental bodies in Germany reached an impact on CPGs that is on par with German ISTs or international IITs and ISTs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrated that a considerable number of trials previously identified as being linked to CPGs have had impact in those CPGs (85%). International ISTs seem to have a lower impact on CPGs, and fewer of them influence CPGs at all.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"25 1","pages":"80"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11948659/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02535-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The goal of evidence-based medicine is to make clinical decisions based on the best available, relevant evidence. For this to be possible, studies such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which are widely considered to provide the best evidence of all forms of primary research, must be visible and have an impact on clinical practice guidelines. We further investigated the impact of publicly and commercially sponsored RCTs on clinical practice guidelines by measuring direct and indirect impactful citations and the time to guideline impact.

Methods: We considered the sample from the IMPACT study, where a total of 691 RCTs (120 German investigator-initiated trials (IITs), 200 international IITs, 171 German industry-sponsored trials (ISTs) and 200 international ISTs) was sampled from registries (DFG-/BMBF-Websites, the German Clinical Trials Register, and from ClinicalTrials.gov) and followed prospectively. First, all eligible IITs were sampled. Then, ISTs were randomly selected while ensuring balance across certain trial characteristics. Next, the corresponding publications in the form of original research articles were identified. A search was then conducted for (1) systematic reviews (SRs) citing these articles and (2) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that cited either the original articles or the SRs. The methods and results of this effort were already published. In this investigation we aimed to better characterize the impact of RCTs in CPGs. Therefore, we identified all citations of the original articles and SRs in the citing CPGs and classified them into impactful and non-impactful. This allowed us to calculate an estimate for the guideline impact of a trial. In addition, we estimated the time-to-guideline-impact, defined as the time to a direct and indirect impactful citation in a CPG. Direct means that the publication of a trial was cited in the main text of a CPG. Indirect means that the publication was cited and included in the findings of a SR and the SR was cited in the main text of a CPG. We also investigated to what extent pre-defined study characteristics influenced the guideline impact using multivariable negative binomial regression as well as the time-to-guideline impact using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression.

Results: Overall, 22% of RCTs impacted a CPG. For international ISTs, only 15% of trials had an impact in CPGs. Overall, of the 405 associated guidelines, 331 were impacted. Larger trials were associated with more impactful main text citations in CPGs and earlier time-to-guideline impact, while international industry-sponsored trials were associated with smaller impact on CPGs and longer time-to-guideline impact. IITs funded by governmental bodies in Germany reached an impact on CPGs that is on par with German ISTs or international IITs and ISTs.

Conclusion: This study demonstrated that a considerable number of trials previously identified as being linked to CPGs have had impact in those CPGs (85%). International ISTs seem to have a lower impact on CPGs, and fewer of them influence CPGs at all.

研究者发起的与行业赞助的试验——临床实践指南(IMPACT)中随机对照试验的可见性和相关性
背景:循证医学的目标是根据可获得的最佳相关证据做出临床决策。为了实现这一点,随机对照试验(RCTs)等研究必须是可见的,并对临床实践指南产生影响。随机对照试验被广泛认为是所有形式的初级研究的最佳证据。通过测量直接和间接影响引用以及指南影响时间,我们进一步调查了公共和商业赞助的随机对照试验对临床实践指南的影响。方法:我们考虑了IMPACT研究的样本,其中共691项随机对照试验(120项德国研究者发起的试验(iit), 200项国际iit, 171项德国工业赞助的试验(ISTs)和200项国际ISTs)从注册库(DFG-/BMBF-Websites,德国临床试验注册库和ClinicalTrials.gov)中抽样,并进行了前瞻性随访。首先,对所有符合条件的iit进行抽样。然后,在确保某些试验特征平衡的情况下,随机选择ist。接下来,以原始研究文章的形式确定相应的出版物。然后进行搜索(1)引用这些文章的系统综述(SRs)和(2)引用原始文章或SRs的临床实践指南(cpg)。这项工作的方法和结果已经发表。在本研究中,我们旨在更好地描述随机对照试验对CPGs的影响。因此,我们对引用cpg中所有的原始文章和SRs的引用进行了识别,并将其分为有影响力和无影响力。这使我们能够计算出试验对指南影响的估计。此外,我们估计了产生指南影响的时间,定义为在CPG中产生直接和间接影响引用的时间。直接是指在CPG的正文中引用了一项试验的发表。间接指的是该出版物被引用并包含在一个SR的发现中,而该SR被引用在一个CPG的主要文本中。我们还使用多变量负二项回归研究了预定义的研究特征对指南影响的程度,并使用多变量Cox比例风险回归研究了到指南的时间影响。结果:总体而言,22%的随机对照试验影响了CPG。对于国际ist,只有15%的试验对cpg有影响。总的来说,在405项相关指南中,有331项受到了影响。较大的试验与cpg中更有影响力的主要文本引用和更早的指南影响时间相关,而国际行业赞助的试验与cpg中较小的影响和更长的指南影响时间相关。由德国政府机构资助的iit对CPGs的影响与德国iit或国际iit和ist相当。结论:本研究表明,相当多先前确定与cpg相关的试验对cpg有影响(85%)。国际istp对cpg的影响似乎较低,而且影响cpg的人很少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信