THE USE OF SUBJECTIVE RANKINGS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS WITH AN APPLICATION TO CARDIOVASCULAR-DISEASE
THE USE OF SUBJECTIVE RANKINGS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS WITH AN APPLICATION TO CARDIOVASCULAR-DISEASE
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/sim.4780110402
复制
发表时间：
1992-02-28
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
CUTLER, JA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
FOLLMANN, D;WITTES, J;CUTLER, JA
如果研究的治疗方法在许多方面影响患者，那么评估临床试验可能会有问题。评估治疗的一种可能方法是让评估者对所有患者的试验经历进行排名，然后测试排名的分布是否在治疗之间存在差异。然而，在提倡这样一种程序之前，人们希望得到保证，即评级者彼此之间的一致性相当好。作为第一步。为了检验评估者是否倾向于同意，我们进行了一项小型研究，由20名评估者评估了来自一项假想的心血管临床试验的43项试验经验。评分员表现出高度的一致性。此外，平均排名同意相当不错的两个定量排名规则。另一方面，平均等级与心血管试验中通常选择的权重不太一致。这些结果表明，排名可能是一种可行的方法来分析某些临床试验的多种结果。
Evaluating a clinical trial can be problematic if the studied treatments affect patients in many ways. A possible method for evaluating treatments is to have raters rank all the patients' trial experiences and then test whether the distribution of ranks differ between treatments. Before one can advocate such a procedure, however, one would like to be assured that raters agree fairly well with one another. As a first step in. examining whether raters tend to agree, we conducted a small study with 20 raters evaluating 43 trial experiences from an imaginary cardiovascular clinical trial. Raters showed a high degree of consensus. Moreover, the average ranks agreed fairly well with two quantitative ranking rules. On the other hand, the average ranks did not agree very well with weightings usually selected in cardiovascular trials. These results suggest ranking may be a feasible approach to analysing certain clinical trials with multiple outcomes.