Withdrawal reasons of randomized controlled trials on type 2 diabetes: a systematic review.

Shahrzad Mohseni, Ozra Tabatabaei-Malazy, Maryam Peimani, Hanieh-Sadat Ejtahed, Mehrnoosh Khodaeian, Elahe Nazeri, Zahra Nouhi, Kajal Khodamoradi, Maryam Aboeerad, Bagher Larijani
{"title":"Withdrawal reasons of randomized controlled trials on type 2 diabetes: a systematic review.","authors":"Shahrzad Mohseni, Ozra Tabatabaei-Malazy, Maryam Peimani, Hanieh-Sadat Ejtahed, Mehrnoosh Khodaeian, Elahe Nazeri, Zahra Nouhi, Kajal Khodamoradi, Maryam Aboeerad, Bagher Larijani","doi":"10.1007/s40199-020-00380-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is the subject of numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The validity of RCTs may be threatened by attrition bias due to the discontinuation of the study. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the reasons of patient's withdrawal from these RCTs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram. The aim was to obtain all relevant blinded RCTs published before January 2017 in which the effectiveness of synthetic drugs, vitamins/minerals were compared to that of placebo or active control in T2DM. The quality of RCTs was assessed using the Jadad score. The frequency of withdrawal reasons was presented based on treatments with placebo/active control, national/international level of the studies, and publication year. Meta-analysis was not performed due to the heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 1368 articles comprising of 640,780 subjects were included. In the majority of the RCTs (75.0%), the intervention and the placebo arms were compared. Most of the included studies (96%) were classified in the high-quality category (Jadad score≥3). The highest proportion of reported withdrawal cases was found in international studies, national RCTs conducted in Japan, and RCTs published in 2011. The withdrawal reasons were reported for 91,669 (63.75%) of the total 143,794 participants who had withdrawn from these studies. The main reported reasons were \"adverse effects\" (24.04%), \"withdraw consent\" (16.10%), and \"missing data\" (11.08%). Variations in the reported withdrawal reasons were based on the country or published year. RCTs with triple blinded design as well as those in which anti-hyperlipidemia and anti-obesity medications were applied, showed significantly higher probability of reported the withdrawal.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>High proportion of reported discontinuation in blinded RCTs on patients with T2DM was related to drug adverse effects. Overall, the total number and reason of drop out were unsatisfactory.</p>","PeriodicalId":10961,"journal":{"name":"Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences","volume":"29 1","pages":"39-50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8149490/pdf/40199_2020_Article_380.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40199-020-00380-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is the subject of numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The validity of RCTs may be threatened by attrition bias due to the discontinuation of the study. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the reasons of patient's withdrawal from these RCTs.

Methods: A systematic literature search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram. The aim was to obtain all relevant blinded RCTs published before January 2017 in which the effectiveness of synthetic drugs, vitamins/minerals were compared to that of placebo or active control in T2DM. The quality of RCTs was assessed using the Jadad score. The frequency of withdrawal reasons was presented based on treatments with placebo/active control, national/international level of the studies, and publication year. Meta-analysis was not performed due to the heterogeneity.

Results: Overall, 1368 articles comprising of 640,780 subjects were included. In the majority of the RCTs (75.0%), the intervention and the placebo arms were compared. Most of the included studies (96%) were classified in the high-quality category (Jadad score≥3). The highest proportion of reported withdrawal cases was found in international studies, national RCTs conducted in Japan, and RCTs published in 2011. The withdrawal reasons were reported for 91,669 (63.75%) of the total 143,794 participants who had withdrawn from these studies. The main reported reasons were "adverse effects" (24.04%), "withdraw consent" (16.10%), and "missing data" (11.08%). Variations in the reported withdrawal reasons were based on the country or published year. RCTs with triple blinded design as well as those in which anti-hyperlipidemia and anti-obesity medications were applied, showed significantly higher probability of reported the withdrawal.

Conclusion: High proportion of reported discontinuation in blinded RCTs on patients with T2DM was related to drug adverse effects. Overall, the total number and reason of drop out were unsatisfactory.

2 型糖尿病随机对照试验的退出原因:系统综述。
目的:2 型糖尿病(T2DM)是众多随机对照试验(RCT)的主题。由于研究中止导致的自然减员偏差可能会威胁到 RCT 的有效性。本系统综述旨在评估患者退出这些 RCT 的原因:根据系统综述和元分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)流程图,在 PubMed、Cochrane 图书馆、Web of Science 和 Scopus 数据库中进行了系统文献检索。目的是获取 2017 年 1 月之前发表的所有相关盲法 RCT,这些 RCT 将合成药物、维生素/矿物质对 T2DM 的疗效与安慰剂或活性对照进行了比较。RCT的质量采用Jadad评分法进行评估。根据安慰剂/活性对照的治疗方法、研究的国内/国际水平和发表年份,列出了撤药原因的频率。由于存在异质性,因此未进行 Meta 分析:共纳入 1368 篇文章,640 780 名受试者。大部分研究(75.0%)对干预组和安慰剂组进行了比较。大部分纳入的研究(96%)被归类为高质量研究(Jadad评分≥3)。国际研究、在日本进行的全国性 RCT 研究以及 2011 年发表的 RCT 研究中报告的撤药病例比例最高。在退出这些研究的 143 794 名参与者中,有 91 669 人(63.75%)报告了退出原因。报告的主要原因是 "不良反应"(24.04%)、"撤回同意"(16.10%)和 "数据缺失"(11.08%)。报告的退出原因因国家或发表年份而异。采用三重盲法设计的研究以及使用抗高脂血症和抗肥胖药物的研究,报告停药的概率明显更高:结论:在针对 T2DM 患者的盲法研究中,报告停药的比例较高,这与药物不良反应有关。结论:在针对 T2DM 患者的盲法 RCT 中,报告的停药比例较高,这与药物不良反应有关。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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