4.3 Article

Explaining temporal trends in annualised relapse rates in placebo groups of randomised controlled trials in relapsing multiple sclerosis: systematic review and meta-regression

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 19, 期 12, 页码 1580-1586

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458513481009

关键词

Multiple sclerosis; relapse; annualised relapse rate; placebo group; baseline characteristics; eligibility criteria; meta-analysis; meta-regression; systematic review; clinical study design

资金

  1. National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Recent studies have shown a decrease in annualised relapse rates (ARRs) in placebo groups of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search of RCTs in RMS. Data on eligibility criteria and baseline characteristics were extracted and tested for significant trends over time. A meta-regression was conducted to estimate their contribution to the decrease of trial ARRs over time. Results: We identified 56 studies. Patient age at baseline (p < 0.001), mean duration of multiple sclerosis (MS) at baseline (p = 0.048), size of treatment groups (p = 0.003), Oxford Quality Scale scores (p = 0.021), and the number of eligibility criteria (p<0.001) increased significantly, whereas pre-trial ARR (p = 0.001), the time span over which pre-trial ARR was calculated (p < 0.001), and the duration of placebo-controlled follow-up (p = 0.006) decreased significantly over time. In meta-regression of trial placebo ARR, the temporal trend was found to be insignificant, with major factors explaining the variation: pre-trial ARR, the number of years used to calculate pre-trial ARR and study duration. Conclusion: The observed decline in trial ARRs may result from decreasing pre-trial ARRs and a shorter time period over which pre-trial ARRs were calculated. Increasing patient age and duration of illness may also contribute.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据