Examining Bias in Published Surgical Glaucoma Clinical Trials
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PRÉCIS: Our results demonstrate that, among randomized clinical trials examining the use of surgical treatments for glaucoma, the majority were not registered. Publication bias (PB) was less likely. More than a third of registered trials presented outcome reporting bias (ORB). PURPOSE: Despite the optimum of quality evidence provided by randomized controlled trials (RCTs), biases may be introduced and hinder their application. The primary objective of this study was to investigate ORB and PB in RCTs assessing surgical treatments of glaucoma, as well as their registration status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases. Inclusion criteria were RCTs published in English between 2007 and 2021 that focused on surgical treatments of patients of all ages with glaucoma or elevated intraocular pressure. Exclusion criteria included cadaveric and animal studies. Registration status was correlated with entries from clinical trial registries. PB was determined by the proportion of trials presenting statistically significant results. ORB was evaluated by comparing the study's primary outcome with that listed in the trial registry. Trials quality was assessed using the Jadad score. RESULTS: After deleting duplicates, 7561 citations were screened. One hundred sixty-one RCTs were eligible and included between 13 and 556 participants. Of the total, 91% studied an adult population and 71% included patients suffering from primary open angle glaucoma. Among included studies, 63% were not registered and 47% had statistically significant results. An upward trend in registration was observed with time. However, 37% of the studies showed discrepancies between objectives in cited clinical trial registries and the published results. CONCLUSION: PB in surgical glaucoma trials was not obvious. Among the minority of trials that were registered, more than a third presented ORB. Unregistered trials had lower quality. RCT registration is crucial for the transparent interpretation of studies, improved patient care in surgery, and informed decision-making.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».