Randomized Agreement Study

• 

  Eligible rcD studies compared one treatment with another or with no intervention, common treatment or standard treatment; were conducted prior to a randomised controlled trial on the same clinical question; assessed effects on mortality; and used analyses based on propensity scores for mortality. We looked at studies that used only regularly collected data. We used a retrospective cohort of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) based on archived protocols approved by six research ethics boards between 13 January 2000 and 25 November 2003. Only RCTs with industry participation were eligible. We reviewed the documentation of publication agreements in RCT protocols and statements in corresponding journal publications. Of the 647 eligible RCT protocols, 456 (70.5%) indicated that they agreed to publish the results. Of these, 456,393 (86.2%) documented the right of an industrial partner to reject or at least examine proposed manuscripts; 39 (8.6%) of the agreements were without publication constraints. The remaining 24 (5.3%) protocols related to separate contractual documents that are not available to us. Of the 432 protocols with an accessible publication agreement, 268 (62.0%) studies were published. Most of the agreements documented in the protocol were not mentioned in the following publication (197/268 [73.5%]).

  Of the 71 agreements reported in the publications, 52 (73.2%) were in compliance with the agreements documented in the protocol. In 14 of the 37 publications (37.8 per cent) in which the statements indicated unlimited publication rights, at least one co-author was an industrial employee. In 25 protocol-publication pairs, author statements in publications did not indicate any restrictions, but 18 corresponding protocols documented restrictive agreements. Measurements of lung function can be performed with different types of spirometers. Thus, the determined values of lung function may depend on both the device used and personal factors. Since measures of lung function are essential for the diagnosis of COPD, differences between lung function devices can lead to misclassification of COPD, which can lead to increased rates of COPD diagnosis when using some models of spirometers [9]. In addition, differences in the devices used may influence lung function outcomes both in research and in the clinical setting when comparing data, conducting multicenter studies, or performing meta-analyses [10, 11]. There are standardized test procedures and guidelines for lung function measurements, but the potential challenge of pairing different devices or repeatability of devices is mentioned [3].

  In addition, few comparative studies have been conducted and there is a lack of information on whether lung function devices can be used interchangeably. Data availability: All individual data used for this sub-study are available at dryaddata.org (DOI: 10.5061/dryade.3s6j7). Contact information for participating research ethics boards can be found in Table S1. The present study confirms that measurements obtained from the same device at different times can be compared. Although the present study provided high-quality spirometric data, not all devices received sufficient comparable lung function values for fev1, FVC, FEF50 and PEF variables. By using different devices that do not receive sufficient comparative values, this can lead to false associations in research studies and incorrect conclusions in clinics. This study illustrates the importance of knowing the type of spirometer used to compare measured lung function values, as repeated measurements of the same person, or when conducting multicentre studies or meta-analyses. Regularly collected health data, such as electronic patient records or patient registries, are proposed to assess the comparative effects of medical interventions on treatments. Theoretically, observational studies collecting this type of data could complement randomised controlled trials.1 The main limitation of rcD studies is their inherent risk of bias due to indication confusion. Although only appropriate randomization can preventively eliminate such biases, approaches such as slope values are often used to treat bias in observational research. The propensity value reflects the probability that a patient will be selected for treatment and is estimated based on information about known factors that influence treatment choices. B e.g.

  disease severity.2 3 Many other methods are increasingly being used, but tilt factors are probably the most popular way to make health care decisions.3 4 5 Studies, the use of data that has not been collected for a particular research project faces many challenges and is subject to various specific nature-related biases. of this data.1 A major challenge is the accuracy and reliability of the data collected, which is generally lower than that of many clinical trials with standardized and predefined outcome assessments. This could be less of a problem for mortality because it is a clear result and less sensitive to data accuracy issues. Conclusions: These inexpensive and easy-to-use electronic monitoring devices showed very good reproducibility and were compatible with the pneumotachograph. Therefore, the PiKo-1 and Spirotel devices appear to be suitable for both screening and monitoring. However, prospective studies are still needed to assess their long-term reproducibility and ease of use, and in particular their impact on improving airway care. Participating REBs endorsed the study or explicitly stated that no ethical approval was required. The absolute match for each domain score (Table 5) was the same between proxy versions for domain self-care. Absolute agreement was higher for the proxy patient`s perspective on mobility (2.5%) and anxiety/depression (7.5%). Absolute agreement was higher for proxy proxy perspective in ADL (1.7%) and Pain (1.7%). .

  . .

القائمة الجانبية