当前预防谵妄试验中潜在的安慰剂偏倚:86项随机对照试验的网络荟萃分析。

IF 6.2 3区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Bing-Yan Zeng, Chih-Sung Liang, Chih-Wei Hsu, Wei-Te Lei, Trevor Thompson, Yen-Wen Chen, Tien-Yu Chen, Ping-Tao Tseng, Yow-Ling Shiue
{"title":"当前预防谵妄试验中潜在的安慰剂偏倚:86项随机对照试验的网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Bing-Yan Zeng, Chih-Sung Liang, Chih-Wei Hsu, Wei-Te Lei, Trevor Thompson, Yen-Wen Chen, Tien-Yu Chen, Ping-Tao Tseng, Yow-Ling Shiue","doi":"10.1111/pcn.13850","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Numerous network meta-analyses (NMAs) have reported inconsistent findings on the efficacy of various pharmacologic treatments for delirium prevention in high-risk patients. A potential confounder was the study design-using a placebo control or standard-of-care (SoC) control. We reexamined the incident delirium between SoC plus placebo and SoC alone in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on delirium prevention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched for relevant RCTs on pharmacotherapies for delirium prevention from the inception of electronic databases through 30 November 2023. The primary outcome was delirium incidence, with secondary consideration given to all-cause mortality. We conducted a frequentist NMA using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect size.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The NMA results from 86 RCTs (19,889 participants, with a mean age of 68.5 years, and a mean female proportion of 44.0%) revealed that SoC plus placebo was associated with a lower risk of incident delirium than SoC alone (RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.41-0.88]). The RR of all-cause mortality was not significant between these two study designs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found placebo effects on the incidence of delirium in RCTs involving high-risk patients. Further RCTs should consider a three-arm, parallel design including both a placebo group and an SoC group to replicate our study findings.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>CRD42023488481.</p>","PeriodicalId":20938,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Potential placebo bias in current trials of delirium prevention: a network meta-analysis of 86 randomized controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Bing-Yan Zeng, Chih-Sung Liang, Chih-Wei Hsu, Wei-Te Lei, Trevor Thompson, Yen-Wen Chen, Tien-Yu Chen, Ping-Tao Tseng, Yow-Ling Shiue\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/pcn.13850\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Numerous network meta-analyses (NMAs) have reported inconsistent findings on the efficacy of various pharmacologic treatments for delirium prevention in high-risk patients. A potential confounder was the study design-using a placebo control or standard-of-care (SoC) control. We reexamined the incident delirium between SoC plus placebo and SoC alone in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on delirium prevention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched for relevant RCTs on pharmacotherapies for delirium prevention from the inception of electronic databases through 30 November 2023. The primary outcome was delirium incidence, with secondary consideration given to all-cause mortality. We conducted a frequentist NMA using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect size.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The NMA results from 86 RCTs (19,889 participants, with a mean age of 68.5 years, and a mean female proportion of 44.0%) revealed that SoC plus placebo was associated with a lower risk of incident delirium than SoC alone (RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.41-0.88]). The RR of all-cause mortality was not significant between these two study designs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found placebo effects on the incidence of delirium in RCTs involving high-risk patients. Further RCTs should consider a three-arm, parallel design including both a placebo group and an SoC group to replicate our study findings.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>CRD42023488481.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20938,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.13850\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.13850","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:许多网络荟萃分析(nma)报告了各种药物治疗对高危患者谵妄预防的疗效不一致的结果。一个潜在的混杂因素是研究设计——使用安慰剂对照或标准护理(SoC)对照。我们在预防谵妄的随机对照试验(rct)中重新检查了SoC加安慰剂和单独使用SoC的谵妄发生率。方法:系统检索电子数据库建立至2023年11月30日期间有关药物治疗预防谵妄的相关rct。主要结局是谵妄发生率,其次考虑全因死亡率。我们使用风险比(rr)和95%置信区间(ci)作为效应量进行了频率分析。结果:86项随机对照试验(19,889名参与者,平均年龄为68.5岁,平均女性比例为44.0%)的NMA结果显示,与单独服用SoC相比,SoC加安慰剂的谵妄发生率较低(RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.41-0.88])。两种研究设计中全因死亡率的RR无显著差异。结论:在涉及高危患者的随机对照试验中,我们发现安慰剂对谵妄的发生率有影响。进一步的随机对照试验应考虑三组平行设计,包括安慰剂组和SoC组,以重复我们的研究结果。试验注册:CRD42023488481。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Potential placebo bias in current trials of delirium prevention: a network meta-analysis of 86 randomized controlled trials.

Aim: Numerous network meta-analyses (NMAs) have reported inconsistent findings on the efficacy of various pharmacologic treatments for delirium prevention in high-risk patients. A potential confounder was the study design-using a placebo control or standard-of-care (SoC) control. We reexamined the incident delirium between SoC plus placebo and SoC alone in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on delirium prevention.

Methods: We systematically searched for relevant RCTs on pharmacotherapies for delirium prevention from the inception of electronic databases through 30 November 2023. The primary outcome was delirium incidence, with secondary consideration given to all-cause mortality. We conducted a frequentist NMA using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect size.

Results: The NMA results from 86 RCTs (19,889 participants, with a mean age of 68.5 years, and a mean female proportion of 44.0%) revealed that SoC plus placebo was associated with a lower risk of incident delirium than SoC alone (RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.41-0.88]). The RR of all-cause mortality was not significant between these two study designs.

Conclusion: We found placebo effects on the incidence of delirium in RCTs involving high-risk patients. Further RCTs should consider a three-arm, parallel design including both a placebo group and an SoC group to replicate our study findings.

Trial registration: CRD42023488481.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
181
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: PCN (Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences) Publication Frequency: Published 12 online issues a year by JSPN Content Categories: Review Articles Regular Articles Letters to the Editor Peer Review Process: All manuscripts undergo peer review by anonymous reviewers, an Editorial Board Member, and the Editor Publication Criteria: Manuscripts are accepted based on quality, originality, and significance to the readership Authors must confirm that the manuscript has not been published or submitted elsewhere and has been approved by each author
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信