Literature DB >> 33556200

Assessing the uncertainty of treatment outcomes in a previous systematic review of venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials: Additional secondary analysis.

Kristen A Eckert1, Marissa J Carter1.   

Abstract

In this secondary analysis of a previous systematic review, we assessed randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments of venous leg ulcers in terms of factors that affect risk of bias at the study level and thus uncertainty of outcomes obtained from the interventions. Articles that assessed the wound bed condition in venous leg ulcers and that were published in English between 1998 and May 22, 2018 were previously searched in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Scopus, Science Direct, and Web of Science. Duplicates and retracted articles were excluded. The following data were extracted to assess the risk of bias: treatment groups; primary and secondary endpoints that were statistically tested between groups, including their results and p values; whether blinding of patients and assessors was done; whether allocation concealment was adequate; whether an intention-to-treat analysis was conducted; whether an appropriate power calculation was correctly done; and whether an appropriate multiplicity adjustment was made, as necessary. Pre- and post-study power calculations were made. The step-up Hochberg procedure adjusted for multiplicity. Results were analysed for all studies, pre-2013 studies, and 2013/post-2013 studies. We included 142 randomized controlled trials that evaluated 14,141 patients. Most studies lacked blinding (72.5-77.5%) and allocation concealment (88.7%). Only 49.3% of trials provided a power calculation, with 27.5% having an appropriate calculation correctly done. Adequate statistical power of the primary endpoint was found in 27.2% of trials. The lack of multiplicity adjustment in 98.6% of studies affected the uncertainty of outcomes in 20% of studies, with the majority of the secondary endpoints (67.7%) in those studies becoming non-significant after multiplicity adjustment. Recent studies tended to weakly demonstrate improved certainty of outcomes. Venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials have a high degree of uncertainty associated with treatment outcomes. Greater attention to trial design and conduct is needed to improve the evidence base.
© 2021 The Authors. Wound Repair and Regeneration published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Wound Healing Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  randomized controlled trials; risk of bias; trial design; uncertainty of outcome; venous leg ulcers

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33556200      PMCID: PMC7986240          DOI: 10.1111/wrr.12897

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Wound Repair Regen        ISSN: 1067-1927            Impact factor:   3.617


  43 in total

1.  The quality of reporting of randomized trials in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery from 1988 through 2000.

Authors:  Mohit Bhandari; Robin R Richards; Sheila Sprague; Emil H Schemitsch
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  It's all about the "E".

Authors:  Lia van Rijswijk
Journal:  Ostomy Wound Manage       Date:  2009-06-01       Impact factor: 2.629

3.  GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence.

Authors:  Howard Balshem; Mark Helfand; Holger J Schünemann; Andrew D Oxman; Regina Kunz; Jan Brozek; Gunn E Vist; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Joerg Meerpohl; Susan Norris; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2011-01-05       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Consensus principles for wound care research obtained using a Delphi process.

Authors:  Thomas Serena; Barbara Bates-Jensen; Marissa J Carter; Renee Cordrey; Vickie Driver; Caroline E Fife; Paul B Haser; Diane Krasner; Marcia Nusgart; Adrianne P S Smith; Robert J Snyder
Journal:  Wound Repair Regen       Date:  2012 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.617

5.  GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-04-26

6.  The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine.

Authors:  Patricia B Burns; Rod J Rohrich; Kevin C Chung
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 4.730

7.  Predictive ability of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  J Villar; G Carroli; J M Belizán
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1995-03-25       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 8.  Systemic wound care: a meta-review of cochrane systematic reviews.

Authors:  Dirk T Ubbink; Trientje B Santema; Robert M Stoekenbroek
Journal:  Surg Technol Int       Date:  2014-03

9.  Methods to assess cost-effectiveness and value of further research when data are sparse: negative-pressure wound therapy for severe pressure ulcers.

Authors:  Marta O Soares; Jo C Dumville; Rebecca L Ashby; Cynthia P Iglesias; Laura Bojke; Una Adderley; Elizabeth McGinnis; Nikki Stubbs; David J Torgerson; Karl Claxton; Nicky Cullum
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2012-08-27       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  Do systematic reviews address community healthcare professionals' wound care uncertainties? Results from evidence mapping in wound care.

Authors:  Janice Christie; Trish A Gray; Jo C Dumville; Nicky A Cullum
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  1 in total

1.  Assessing the uncertainty of treatment outcomes in a previous systematic review of venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials: Additional secondary analysis.

Authors:  Kristen A Eckert; Marissa J Carter
Journal:  Wound Repair Regen       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 3.617

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.