P1667: ATTRIBUTES OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AND THEIR ASSOCIATIONS WITH FUNDING SOURCE IN VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM PROPHYLAXIS FOR PATIENTS WITH CANCER: A BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Topic: 34. Thrombosis and vascular biology - Biology & Translational Research Background: Commercial sponsorship plays a large role in shaping the literature in hematology. Commercial sponsorship has potential to overcome feasibility limitations inherent in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), such as recruitment and duration of follow up, but may attract scrutiny in its robustness or potential for bias. Aims: In RCTs of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in patients with cancer, how do commercially sponsored RCTs compare with non-commercially funded RCTs regarding publication patterns such as reporting bias, robustness, and trial characteristics? Methods: OVID Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL, were systematically searched for RCTs that investigated at least one pharmacologic intervention for VTE prophylaxis in adult patients with cancer. Article screening and data extrapolation were conducted in duplicate. Outcomes include a comprehensive set of trial characteristics (e.g. sample size, duration), a favourable outcome, the discrepancy between protocol and manuscript, and appraisal of “spin.” Outcomes were compared using the independent t-test, Mann-Whitney test, Pearson chi-squared test, and Fisher’s exact test where appropriate. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with possible bias. Results: Of the 59 trials analyzed, 34 (63%) reported commercial sponsorship. Commercial sponsorship was not associated with the reporting of favourable outcomes, protocol-manuscript discrepancy, or presence of spin (Chi-squared=0.025, p=0.87; Chi-squared=3.07, p=0.08; Chi-squared=0.20, p=0.65). The commercially sponsored trials had a higher rate of intention-to-treat analysis (Chi-squared=12.2, p=0.0006). In contrast, non-commercially sponsored trials were likelier to report retrospective registration of trial protocol and use of composite primary outcomes (Chi-squared=9.8628, p=0.007; Chi-squared=3.88, p=0.05). Commercial sponsorship was not associated with presence of spin or high levels of spin (Chi-squared=0.20, p=0.65; Chi-squared = 2.52, p=0.11). Spin was most prevalent in the abstract conclusions (9 out of 17 [53.3%]) and manuscript conclusions (8 out of 17 [46.7%]). Summary/Conclusion: There were few significant differences in publication characteristics between commercially sponsored and non-commercially sponsored trials. These results suggest that the evidence from commercially sponsored trials investigating VTE prophylaxis in cancer patients is not likely to be subject to biases attributable to commercial sponsorship.Keywords: Venous thromboembolism, Anticoagulants, Thromboprophylaxis, 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 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 | 0,021 | 0,026 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,018 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».