The methodological and reporting quality of randomized controlled trials of tyrosine kinase inhibitors for advanced differentiated thyroid cancer: Meta‐research study.

Autor: Dedivitis, Rogério Aparecido, Castro, Mario Augusto Ferrari de, Boni, Alice Matos Dal, Alvares, Ana Carolina Beltrão, Tresso, Ana Júlia Piazentin, Oliveira, Andrea Davedovicz de, Vieira, Amanda Gonçalves da Silva Dourado, Mendes, Fernanda Assaf, Rossi, Giovana de Oliveira, Fava, Giullia Neworal, Pouza, Isabela Santos, Santana, Izabelle Pimenta, Laino, Julia Gibran, Lima, Letícia Barbosa de, Martimbianco, Ana Luiza Cabrera
Předmět:
Zdroj: Head & Neck; Jul2024, Vol. 46 Issue 7, p1683-1697, 15p
Abstrakt: Introduction: Clinical trials on tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) treatment have shown an improvement in overall and progression‐free survival in patients with advanced differentiated thyroid cancer. However, it is necessary to evaluate these studies to assess methodological biases and inconsistencies that may impact the effects. Objective: To map and assess the methodological quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) regarding randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, and selective reporting bias. Methods: RCTs assessing the efficacy and safety of TKI for the treatment of advanced differentiated thyroid cancer were included. The search was performed in the MEDLINE database. The included RCTs were assessed for the adequacy of the methodological steps, as recommended by the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Results: Nine studies were analyzed, of which 77.7% were classified as low risk of bias regarding selective reporting and 33.3% as high risk of reporting bias. The mean time between protocol registration and study publication was approximately 5.11 years. Moreover, 66.7% were classified as low risk of bias for randomization and allocation concealment, and 33.3% did not specify the randomization process and allocation concealment in a way that would allow the identification of occurrences of bias. Concerning blinding of participants and outcome assessors, 77.8% of the RCTs reported adequate blinding and were classified as having a low risk of bias, 11.1% had a high risk of bias, and 11.1% had insufficient information and were classified as having unclear risk of bias. Regarding the blinding of the outcome assessors, 33.3% did the blinding correctly, 11.1% did not blind, and 55.6% did not provide enough information. Conclusion: Overall, the assessed RCTs were predominantly at low risk of bias. The critical evaluation of these studies is essential to have confidence in the treatment estimated effect that will support clinical decision‐making and provide information to preclude future clinical study flaws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Databáze: Complementary Index
Externí odkaz: