Artículos de revistas
Systematic survey of randomized trials evaluating the impact of alternative diagnostic strategies on patient-important outcomes
Fecha
2017-04-01Registro en:
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, v. 84, p. 61-69.
1878-5921
0895-4356
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.12.009
2-s2.0-85011275785
2-s2.0-85011275785.pdf
8745358989680600
0000-0002-2323-9159
Autor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
McMaster University
University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital
American University of Beirut Medical Center
and Impact (HEI)
Tanta Chest Hospital
Faculty of Health Sciences
University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine
1 King's College Circle
Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis
Jordan University of Science and Technology
Kerman University of Medical Sciences
Rodovia Raposo Tavares
Hospital do Coração (HCor)
Northern Ontario School of Medicine
41 Ramsey Lake Rd
Institución
Resumen
Objectives To provide a perspective on the current practice of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of diagnostic strategies focusing on patient-important outcomes. Study Design and Setting We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE and included RCTs published in full-text reports that evaluated alternative diagnostic strategies. Results Of 56,912 unique citations, we sampled 7,500 and included 103 eligible RCTs, therefore suggesting that MEDLINE includes approximately 781 diagnostic RCTs. The 103 eligible trials reported on: mortality (n = 41; 39.8%); morbidities (n = 63; 61.2%); symptoms/quality of life/functional status (n = 14; 13.6%); and on composite end points (n = 10; 9.7%). Of the studies that reported statistically significant results (n = 12; 11.6%), we judged 7 (58.3%) as at low risk of bias with respect to missing outcome data and 4 (33.3%) as at low risk of bias regarding blinding. Of the 41 RCTs that reported on mortality, only one (2.4%) reported statistically significant results. Of 63 RCTs addressing morbidity outcomes, 11 (17.5%) reported statistically significant results, all of which reported relative effects of greater than 20%. Conclusion RCTs of diagnostic tests are not uncommon, and sometimes suggest benefits on patient-important outcomes but often suffer from limitations in sample size and conduct.