Association of study type, sample size, and follow-up length with type of recommendation produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Interventional Procedures Programme
Association of study type, sample size, and follow-up length with type of recommendation produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Interventional Procedures Programme
复制标题
DOI:
10.1017/s026646230705163x
复制
发表时间:
2007-12-01
影响因子:
3.2
通讯作者:
Lyratzopoulos, Georgios
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Campbell, William Bruce;Barnes, Steven J.;Lyratzopoulos, Georgios
Objectives: The association between type and amount of clinical evidence and type of National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommendations for interventional procedures was examined.Methods: The evidence about 736 studies (including 183,729 patients) relating to 130 different interventional procedures and about relevant recommendations was analyzed. Associations were examined between type of recommendation ("normal arrangements" or "cautionary guidance") and evidence type, total number of treated patients, and mean follow-up length. Evidence type was categorized as (a) randomized, (b) nonrandomized controlled, and (c) case series/reports. The main outcome measures were frequency of evidence type, total number of patients treated, and mean follow-up length, by type of recommendation.Results: "Normal arrangements" recommendations were made for 70 (54 percent) procedures and "cautionary guidance" was issued for 60 (46 percent) procedures. Procedures supported by at least one randomized study (34 percent, n = 44) were more likely to receive a "normal arrangements" recommendation (relative risk 1.38, p =.063). Overall, there were 85 (12 percent), 135 (18 percent), and 516 (70 percent) studies in categories a-c, respectively. The number of treated patients was significantly larger among procedures with "normal arrangements" (median, 605; range, 26-6,842) than among those with "cautionary guidance" (median, 240; range, 1-3,261; p