Demographic analysis of randomized controlled trials in bladder cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
UNLABELLED: WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: Results from well designed randomized controlled trials usually provide the strongest evidence possible in favour of one medical intervention over another. For this reason, it is of paramount importance to conduct such trials in bladder cancer, where randomized trials are lacking, in particular to answer questions that have so far confounded us or to investigate the efficacy of new diagnostic tools or interventions. This study provides a demographic analysis of randomized controlled trials published in bladder cancer between the years of 1995 and 2010, with only 238 articles identified. Less than one-third of these reported a statistical power calculation, and only 8% were double-blinded. With many publications inaccurately labelled as randomized trials, we reveal the scarcity of trials performed over the given time period, even compared with other cancers with similar incidence, and highlight the need for more well designed trials to be conducted. OBJECTIVE: To demographically examine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have been conducted in bladder cancer over a predefined time period. METHODS: Various techniques have been described to detect RCTs using different databases. We searched the MEDLINE database by crossing the heading 'Urinary bladder neoplasms' with the MeSHs 'Clinical trial$.mp. OR clinical trial.pt. OR random:.mp. OR tu.xs.' between 1995 and 2010. For the RCTs identified, analysis was performed on each RCT, placing particular emphasis on modality of intervention, cohort size, principal author, region, journal type, disease status, histology, blinding, number of centres involved, performance of a statistical power calculation, accrual status and trial support. RESULTS: Of 5002 RCT bladder cancer papers retrieved over the given period, only 238 represented actual RCTs after manual appraisal. More than half of the RCTs investigated medical and surgical therapies (54.2%), and only half had a sample size of >100 patients. A small percentage of studies were double-blinded (8.0%), and there was an almost equal distribution of multicentre vs single centre trials (54.6% vs 45.4%). More studies were conducted in Europe (61.3%) than the rest of the world combined, with urologists principally the lead investigators in the majority (72.3%). Most studies were conducted on patients with urothelial carcinoma (97.1%), with less than one-third reporting a statistical power calculation (31.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Only 238 RCTs were published for bladder cancer between 1995 and 2010. RCTs are under-utilized in bladder cancer. More trials need to be designed with larger sample sizes in order to optimize diagnostic and treatment strategies for patients with bladder cancer.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,315 | 0,680 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,015 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,026 | 0,023 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».