糖尿病护理的“现实世界”临床试验:有意义还是无意义?

IF 0.4 Q4 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
P. Home
{"title":"糖尿病护理的“现实世界”临床试验:有意义还是无意义?","authors":"P. Home","doi":"10.15277/bjd.2021.317","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"So-called 'real-world' studies seem increasingly popular in diabetes care, as are the economic evaluations in secondary literature based upon them. The term is usually used for pharmacoepidemiological uncontrolled observational studies of different designs. Interpretation of the study findings is, however, badly undermined by the very reasons that the randomised controlled blinded study was invented – namely, non-medication study effects and biases in investigator selection and behaviour. In diabetes studies, glucose control seems particularly susceptible to such effects, perhaps through changes in patient motivation and education. Further, insulin studies are heavily influenced by baseline factors such as the site of starting insulin, the health circumstances of the patient at the time and the clinician involved. It is rare to see these issues adequately addressed or attempts made to understand their influence. In this article an attempt is made to discuss some of the issues further.","PeriodicalId":42951,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Diabetes","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'Real-world' clinical trials in diabetes care: meaningful or meaningless?\",\"authors\":\"P. Home\",\"doi\":\"10.15277/bjd.2021.317\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"So-called 'real-world' studies seem increasingly popular in diabetes care, as are the economic evaluations in secondary literature based upon them. The term is usually used for pharmacoepidemiological uncontrolled observational studies of different designs. Interpretation of the study findings is, however, badly undermined by the very reasons that the randomised controlled blinded study was invented – namely, non-medication study effects and biases in investigator selection and behaviour. In diabetes studies, glucose control seems particularly susceptible to such effects, perhaps through changes in patient motivation and education. Further, insulin studies are heavily influenced by baseline factors such as the site of starting insulin, the health circumstances of the patient at the time and the clinician involved. It is rare to see these issues adequately addressed or attempts made to understand their influence. In this article an attempt is made to discuss some of the issues further.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42951,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Diabetes\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Diabetes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15277/bjd.2021.317\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Diabetes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15277/bjd.2021.317","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

所谓的“真实世界”研究似乎在糖尿病护理中越来越受欢迎,二手文献中基于它们的经济评估也是如此。该术语通常用于不同设计的药物流行病学非控制观察性研究。然而,对研究结果的解释被发明随机对照盲法研究的原因严重破坏了——即非药物研究的影响和研究者选择和行为的偏见。在糖尿病研究中,血糖控制似乎特别容易受到这种影响,可能是由于患者动机和教育的改变。此外,胰岛素研究在很大程度上受到基线因素的影响,如开始使用胰岛素的地点、患者当时的健康状况和参与的临床医生。很少看到这些问题得到充分解决,也很少有人试图理解它们的影响。本文试图进一步讨论其中的一些问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
'Real-world' clinical trials in diabetes care: meaningful or meaningless?
So-called 'real-world' studies seem increasingly popular in diabetes care, as are the economic evaluations in secondary literature based upon them. The term is usually used for pharmacoepidemiological uncontrolled observational studies of different designs. Interpretation of the study findings is, however, badly undermined by the very reasons that the randomised controlled blinded study was invented – namely, non-medication study effects and biases in investigator selection and behaviour. In diabetes studies, glucose control seems particularly susceptible to such effects, perhaps through changes in patient motivation and education. Further, insulin studies are heavily influenced by baseline factors such as the site of starting insulin, the health circumstances of the patient at the time and the clinician involved. It is rare to see these issues adequately addressed or attempts made to understand their influence. In this article an attempt is made to discuss some of the issues further.
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
British Journal of Diabetes
British Journal of Diabetes ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM-
自引率
16.70%
发文量
15
×
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