We have located links that may give you full text access.
Unreported exclusion and sampling bias in interpretation of randomized controlled trials in patients with STEMI.
International Journal of Cardiology 2019 May 2
AIMS: To assess the impact of sampling bias due to reported as well as unreported exclusion of the target population in a multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).
METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared clinical characteristics and mortality between participants in the DANAMI-3 trial to contemporary non-participants with STEMI using unselected registries. A total of 179 DANAMI-3 participants (8%) and 617 contemporary non-participants (22%) had died (Log-Rank: P < 0.001) after a median follow-up of 1333 days (range: 1-2021 days). In an unadjusted Cox regression model all groups of non-participants had a higher hazard ratio to predict mortality compared to participants: eligible excluded (n = 144) (hazard ratio: 3.41 (95% CI: (2.69-4.32)), ineligible excluded (n = 472) (hazard ratio: 3.42 (95% CI: (2.44-4.80), eligible non-screened (n = 154) (hazard ratio: 3.37 (95% CI: (2.36-4.82)), ineligible non-screened (n = 154) (hazard ratio: 6.48 (95% CI: (4.77-8.80).
CONCLUSION: Sampling bias had occurred due to both reported and unreported exclusion of eligible patients and the difference in mortality between participants and non-participants could not be explained only by the trial exclusion criteria. Thus, screening logs may not be suited to address the risks of sampling bias.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared clinical characteristics and mortality between participants in the DANAMI-3 trial to contemporary non-participants with STEMI using unselected registries. A total of 179 DANAMI-3 participants (8%) and 617 contemporary non-participants (22%) had died (Log-Rank: P < 0.001) after a median follow-up of 1333 days (range: 1-2021 days). In an unadjusted Cox regression model all groups of non-participants had a higher hazard ratio to predict mortality compared to participants: eligible excluded (n = 144) (hazard ratio: 3.41 (95% CI: (2.69-4.32)), ineligible excluded (n = 472) (hazard ratio: 3.42 (95% CI: (2.44-4.80), eligible non-screened (n = 154) (hazard ratio: 3.37 (95% CI: (2.36-4.82)), ineligible non-screened (n = 154) (hazard ratio: 6.48 (95% CI: (4.77-8.80).
CONCLUSION: Sampling bias had occurred due to both reported and unreported exclusion of eligible patients and the difference in mortality between participants and non-participants could not be explained only by the trial exclusion criteria. Thus, screening logs may not be suited to address the risks of sampling bias.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app