Coenrollment of critically ill patients in PROSPECT: characteristics and association with treatment efficacy and safety
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Coenrollment is the enrollment of one participant into more than one study. While coenrollment can enhance research efficiency, it theoretically may result in treatment interactions that distort effect estimates. This study aimed to explore the sensitivity of safety and efficacy outcomes to coenrollment in an international, blinded randomized controlled trial evaluating probiotic use in critically ill patients (PROSPECT: Probiotics: Prevention of Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial; [NCT02462590]). METHODS: In this planned secondary analysis of PROSPECT, we performed Cox proportional hazards analyses to assess the sensitivity of the treatment effect of probiotics to coenrollment on the primary outcome of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Secondarily, we examined the characteristics of coenrolled patients, studies, and centers using descriptive statistics, explored factors associated with coenrollment via a multilevel logistic regression model, and conducted Fisher's exact tests to evaluate the difference in adverse event rates (defined as Lactobacillus species from a sterile site or cultured as the sole or predominant organism from a nonsterile site) by coenrollment status. RESULTS: Of 2650 PROSPECT participants recruited across 44 centers, 568 patients (21.4%) were coenrolled a total of 680 times across 115 studies. Coenrollment did not modify the effect of probiotics on the primary outcome of ventilator-associated pneumonia (p = 0.630). Patients who were coenrolled in any other study had a higher rate of adverse events compared to non-coenrolled patients (p = 0.011); however, post hoc testing found no difference in adverse events between patients coenrolled specifically into at least one other randomized controlled trial and patients who were not coenrolled into another randomized controlled trial (i.e., coenrolled into an observational study or not coenrolled at all; p = 0.126). Multivariable analyses found more severely ill patients (p = 0.038) and patients from centers with a longer PROSPECT recruitment period (p = 0.047) were more likely to be coenrolled. CONCLUSION: In this international, blinded trial, one-fifth of patients enrolled were coenrolled in at least one other study, which had no influence on the effect of probiotics on the primary outcome. Coenrolled patients were more likely to have higher disease severity, and to be recruited from a center with a longer history of participation in PROSPECT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PROSPECT trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02462590. Registered on June 2015.
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 | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».