ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy of absorbable barbed suture versus traditional absorbable suture in total knee arthroplasty (TKA).MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect clinical trials of absorbable barbed suture versus traditional absorbable suture in TKA from inception to November, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies, then, meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 cohort studies were included, involving 2 008 patients. Meta-analysis showed that the joint capsule suture time of the absorbable barbed suture group [MD=–4.31, 95% CI (–4.72, –3.90), P<0.000 01], the incidence of acupuncture injury during suture [OR=0.14, 95% CI (0.03, 0.61),P=0.009], and incision complication rate [OR=0.56, 95% CI (0.36, 0.88), P=0.01] were significantly lower than the traditional absorbable suture group, but the incidence of suture fracture [OR=23.03, 95% CI (3.08, 172.09),P=0.002] was higher, yet the difference was statistically significant. There were no significant differences in the incidence of superficial infection, deep infection, aseptic redness, incision dehiscence and KSS score at 3 months after operation (P>0.05).ConclusionsAvailable evidence suggests that the use of absorbable barbed sutures to close the TKA surgical incision shortens the time to suture the joint capsule, reduces the incidence of acupuncture injury as well as the overall incidence of incision complications without increasing superficial infection, deep infection, and sterility. The incidence of redness and incision splitting has no significant effects on joint function at 3 months after surgery, however the incidence of suture fracture is higher. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, the above conclusions are required to be verified by more high-quality studies.
Objective To compare the balance of simple randomization, stratified blocked randomization and minimization. Methods Monte Carlo technique was employed to simulate the treatment allocation of simple randomization, stratified blocked randomization and minimization respectively, then the balance of treatment allocation in each group and the balance for every prognostic factor were compared. Results The simulation demonstrated that minimization provides the best performance to ensure balance in the number of patients between groups and prognostic factors. Balance in prognostic factors achieved with stratified blocked randomization was similar to that achieved with simple randomization. Conclusion Minimization offers the best balance in the number of patients and prognostic factors between groups.
To declare the clinical value of lowing serum LDL-C level in coronary heart disease by reviewing the history of its clinical trials in the last 4 decades.
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is currently a world-wide major public health event. Since study sites of clinical trials are primarily at healthcare institutions and investigators are primarily clinicians, the epidemic inevitably has a huge impact on a large number of ongoing clinical trials. The proper implementation of clinical trials in key aspects and the quality of core data collection will greatly influence the validity of the final results. In this paper, we analyzed the potential impact of the outbreak of a new epidemic infectious diseases on the clinical trials from seven aspects, which involves the selection of study participants, randomization, blinding, implementation of intervention measures, follow-up of primary outcomes, safety monitoring and project management. Corresponding countermeasures were put forward.
Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a new technique for medical research. It is interesting to know how to publish a high quality paper after clinical trial by the criteria of EBM. This paper presents our experience on clinical trials as well as publishing EBM papers, including the aim of research, the design of study methods, the selection and application of statistical methods, the analysis of study results, feedback to the reviewer’s comments, and other technology related to the submitted manuscript, in order to improve the skill of publishing EBM study in our country.
Diabetic macular edema (DME) is one of the main reasons causing blindness in patients with diabetic retinopathy. In recent years, with the recognition of the pathogenic role of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in DME, many clinical trials of intravitreal injection of anti-VEGF drugs have been carried out at home and abroad, proving that it has significant effects in improving visual acuity and reducing macular edema, and has become the first-line treatment of DME. However, there are still many challenges in routine clinical application of anti-VEGF drugs, such as frequent injections, insensitivity to treatment, and it is unclear whether repeated injections will cause damage to retina. The pathophysiological process of DME is very complicated, in addition to VEGF, there are many inflammatory factors and growth factors involved. Clinical trials of long-acting anti-VEGF agents, drugs of other targets and gene therapy are also being carried out. It is believed that with the in-depth research and progress of clinical trials, the gradual application of anti-VEGF drugs, other drugs and therapy in clinical practice are just around the corner, which is expected to provide more convenient and effective treatments for DME patients in the future.
ObjectivesTo analyze the metrological characteristics of hypertension-related clinical trials registered on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR), and discuss the characteristics and developmental trends of hypertension clinical trials registration in China.MethodsChiCTR were searched to collect hypertension-related clinical trials from inception to March 25th, 2018. The characteristics of registered trials were analyzed.ResultsA total of 135 registered trials were included, in which the trials from Beijing, Guangdong, Jiangsu, Chongqing and Shanghai accounted for 55.5%. 115 trials were pre-registered. The top three funding sources were from finance (32, 23.7%), self-financing (25, 18.5%) and hospital (20, 14.8%), respectively. Of all 79 randomized controlled trials, 55 were blank/missing in the entry of blinding method.ConclusionsThe number of hypertension-related clinical trials in ChiCTR tends to increase, however there are large regional disparities and incomplete, non-standardiazed information in the registration of clinical trials. The relevant departments should increase the publicity on the registration of clinical trials, raise the awareness of registration, and promote the development and registration of high quality clinical trials.
Since the outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), more than 200 interventional clinical trials have been registered in Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (www.chictr.org.cn) and the US Clinical Trials Registry (www.clinicaltrials.gov), testing or going to test treatments of COVID-19 in China from January 23rd, 2020 to March 5th, 2020. This situation has drawn attentions from various sectors of society. This article summarizes the basic design features of 249 registered COVID-19 clinical trials in China, compares them with National Clinical Trials Network practices in the USA, and describes a concept of national clinical trials network as a strategy to enhance quality and efficiency of clinical research in cases like COVID-19 outbreak as well as other disease fields.
Rapid development of recently emerging precision medicine techniques represented by gene therapy has brought hope for the treatment of rare blinding eye diseases such as inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) for which there was no effective treatment previously. Although the globally growth of clinical trials for IRDs has increased rapidly over the past decade, due to the highly genetic and clinical phenotypic heterogeneity, as well as limited data on epidemiology and natural history of the disease, along with severe loss of vision function of majority patients for which the established measurements may not be appropriate, such studies lack standard outcome measurements and endpoints to asses clinical meaningful effectiveness, posing great challenges in terms of study design and evaluation of treatment efficacy, as well as clinical practice application. At present, there is no systematic nor standardized guidance on safety measures, clinical outcomes and endpoints of visual function for clinical trial design in IRDs. Therefore, in order to standardize the validated evaluation of IRDs clinical efficacy outcome measurements and endpoints, the Fundus Disease Group of Chinese Medical Association Ophthalmology Branch and Fundus Disease Committee of Chinese Medical Doctor Association Ophthalmology Branch organized domestic experts to put forward consensus and recommendations on standardizing outcome measurements and endpoints for clinical study design in IRDs, aiming to advance the study design of IRDs natural history research and clinical trials and to effectively evaluate disease progression and intervention efficacy. Along with the development of medical science and clinical trials, relevant content will be improved and updated accordingly.
Objective To explore and appraise the representation of samples in clinical trials of hypertension medications. Methods Four databases (MEDLINE, CBM, CNKI and VIP )were searched systematically. All RCTs of hypertension medication run in China from January 1996 to December 2006 were collected, and then appraised by a quality assessment checklist. Those RCTs with 3 or more grading score were enrolled for critical appraisal of representation of samples. Results A total of 164 RCTs on hypertension were targeted and reviewed systematically. 122 (74.4%) RCTs selected secondary or tertiary cares as their trial settings. 81 (49.4%) RCTs described the source of samples, in which 86.3% were hospitalized patients. 16.7% patients in 12 (7.3%) RCTs were excluded in run-in periods, 24.6% patients were ineligible for inclusion criteria in 8 (4.9%) RCTs. 8.4% eligible patients were non-enrolled in 3 RCTs. 89.4% subjects were mild to moderate essential hypertension. The proportions of women and the patients aged 65 years or older were 41.1% and 16.9%, respectively, and were markedly lower than that in community (Plt;0.001). Conclusion Representation of samples in clinical trials of hypertension medications was not good and the influencing factors of representation were not reported sufficiently. These would undermine the efforts to provide evidence-based care to all hypertensive patients.