...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>BMJ: British medical journal >Patients' preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis
【24h】

Patients' preferences within randomised trials: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis

机译：在随机试验中病人的偏好:系统回顾和荟萃分析病人水平

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Objective To systematically review fully randomised patient preference trials and to explore the impact of preferences on attrition and outcome by meta-analysis of patient level data. Data sources Citation search using Science Citation Index and Google Scholar and search of the main electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and AMED) with a combination of keywords. Study selection Fully randomised patient preference trials that compared treatments for any clinical condition were included. Other types of preference trials and cross over trials were excluded. Other inclusion criteria: participants aged 16 years and over; primary, self-reported outcomes measured on a continuous numerical scale. From 167 studies identified and screened, 17 were identified as fully randomised patient preference trials. Data synthesis Of the 17 trials identified, 11 authors provided raw data for the meta-analysis. Data collected were baseline and follow-up data forthe main outcome, randomised allocation data, preference data, and demographic data. Baseline and first post-intervention follow-up data for the main outcome were standardised. To improve homogeneity, data for only the eight musculoskeletal trials (n=1594) were combined. To estimate the effects of preferences on outcomes and attrition, three groups were compared: patients who had a preference and were randomly allocated to their preferred treatment; patients who had a preference and were randomly allocated to the treatment they did not prefer; and patients who had no preference. Results Patients who were randomised to their preferred treatment had a standardised effect size greaterthan that of those who were indifferent to the treatment assignment (effect size 0.162, 95% confidence interval 0.011 to 0.314; ,P=0.04). Participants who received their preferred treatment also did better than participants who did not receive their preferred treatment (effect size 0.152, -0.035 to 0.339), although this was not statistically signi
机译：目的:系统综述随机试验和病人的偏好探索偏好对摩擦的影响和结果的荟萃分析病人的水平数据。引文索引和谷歌学者和搜索的主要的电子数据库(Medline、CINAHLEmbase,艾湄湾)和关键词的组合。研究选择病人完全随机偏好试验治疗进行比较包括任何临床条件。偏好试验和交叉试验排除在外。16岁及以上;以一个连续的数值结果规模。17日被认定为完全随机的病人首选项试验。试验发现,11作者提供原始数据荟萃分析。基线和随访数据为主要的结果,随机分配数据,偏好数据,人口统计数据。为主要干预随访数据结果被标准化。同质性,数据只有八岁肌肉骨骼试验(n = 1594)的总和。估计参数对结果的影响和摩擦,三组比较:病人的偏好和随机分配给他们的首选治疗;谁有偏好,被随机分配治疗他们不喜欢;病人没有偏好。他们被随机首选治疗有标准化的影响大小greaterthan呢那些冷漠的治疗赋值(0.162效果,95%的信心区间0.011 - 0.314;谁接受了他们喜欢的治疗也比那些没有收到首选的治疗效应大小0.152,-0.035到0.339),尽管这不是统计价格

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号