Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Care | Research

Intervention effect estimates in randomised controlled trials conducted in primary care versus secondary or tertiary care settings: a meta-epidemiological study

Authors: Amandine Dugard, Elsa Tavernier, Agnès Caille, Agnès Dechartres, Adeline Hoang, Bruno Giraudeau, Clarisse Dibao-Dina

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2022

Abstract

Background

Many clinical practice guidelines are based on randomised controlled trials conducted in secondary or tertiary care setting and general practitioners frequently question their relevance for primary care patients. Our aim was to compare the intervention effect estimates between primary care setting randomised controlled trials (PC-RCTs) and secondary or tertiary care setting randomised controlled trials (ST-RCTs).

Methods

Meta-epidemiological study of meta-analyses (MAs) of a binary outcome including at least one PC-RCT and one ST-RCT. PC-RCTs were defined as trials recruiting patients in general practices, primary care practices, family practices, community centers or community pharmacies. ST-RCTs were defined as trials recruiting in hospitals, including hospitalized patients, hospital outpatients and patients from emergency departments. For each MA, we estimated a ratio of odds ratio (ROR) by using random-effects meta-regression, with an ROR less than 1 indicating lower estimates of the intervention effect in PC-RCTs than ST-RCTs. Finally, we estimated a combined ROR across MAs by using a random-effects meta-analysis. We performed subgroup analyses considering the type of outcomes (objective vs subjective), type of experimental intervention (pharmacological vs non-pharmacological), and control group (active vs inactive) as well as analyses adjusted on items of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

Results

Among 1765 screened reviews, 76 MAs with 230 PC-RCTs and 384 ST-RCTs were selected. The main medical fields were pneumology (13.2%) and psychiatry or addictology (38.2%). Intervention effect estimates did not significantly differ between PC-RCTs and ST-RCTs (ROR = 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.08), with moderate heterogeneity across MAs (I² = 45%). Subgroup and adjusted analyses led to consistent results.

Conclusion

We did not observe any significant difference in intervention effect estimates between PC-RCTs and ST-RCTs. Nevertheless, most of the medical fields in this meta-epidemiological study were not representative of the pathologies encountered in primary care. Further studies with pathologies more frequently encountered in primary care are needed.

Available only for authorised users

Ekesbo R, Midlöv P, Gerward S, et al. Lack of adherence to hypertension treatment guidelines among GPs in southern Sweden-a case report-based survey. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13:34. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-13-34.CrossRef

Grol R, Dalhuijsen J, Thomas S, et al. Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: observational study. BMJ. 1998;317:858–61. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7162.858.CrossRef

Carlsen B, Norheim OF. « what lies beneath it all? » – an interview study of GPs’ attitudes to the use of guidelines. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:218. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-8-218.CrossRef

Lugtenberg M, Zegers-van Schaick JM, Westert GP, Burgers JS. Why don’t physicians adhere to guideline recommendations in practice? An analysis of barriers among Dutch general practitioners. Implement Sci. 2009;4:54. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-54.CrossRef

Cranney M, Warren E, Barton S, et al. Why do GPs not implement evidence-based guidelines? A descriptive study Fam Pract. 2001;18(4):359–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/18.4.359.CrossRef

Steel N, Abdelhamid A, Stokes T, et al. A review of clinical practice guidelines found that they were often based on evidence of uncertain relevance to primary care patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:1251–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.05.020.CrossRef

Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?”. The Lancet. 2005;365(9453):82–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17670-8.CrossRef

Uijen AA, Bakx JC, Mokkink HGA, et al. Hypertension patients participating in trials differ in many aspects from patients treated in general practices. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007:6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.05.015.

Fahey T. Applying the results of clinical trials to patients to general practice: perceived problems, strengths, assumptions, and challenges for the future. Br J Gen Pract J R Coll Gen Pract. 1998;48:1173–8.

10.

Sonis J. Applicability of clinical trial results to primary care. JAMA. 1998;280(20):1746–a. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.20.1746-a.CrossRef

11.

Barnett K, Mercer SW, Norbury M, et al. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2012;380:37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60240-2.CrossRef

12.

Sterne JAC, Jüni P, Schulz KF, et al. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in « meta-epidemiological » research. Stat Med. 2002;21:1513–24.CrossRef

13.

Zhang W. Meta-epidemiology: building the bridge from research evidence to clinical practice. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2010;18(Suppl 2):S1.CrossRef

14.

Afonso MM, Bénard A, Chapron A, et al. Les soins primaires : une définition du champ pour développer la recherche. Epidemiol Public Health Rev Epidémiologie. Revue d'Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique. 2018;66:157–62 doi : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respe.2017.09.004.CrossRef

15.

Savović J, Jones HE, Altman DG, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:429–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1184.CrossRef

16.

Cochrane Bias Methods Group Cochrane Statistical Methods Group, Higgins Julian PT, Altman Douglas G, Gøtzsche Peter C, Peter J, David M, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:889–93. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928.CrossRef

17.

Moustgaard H, Jones HE, Savović J, et al. Ten questions to consider when interpreting results of a meta-epidemiological study—the MetaBLIND study as a case. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11:260–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1392.CrossRef

18.

Dechartres A, Trinquart L, Faber T, et al. Empirical evaluation of which trial characteristics are associated with treatment effect estimates. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;77:24–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.04.005.CrossRef

19.

Moja LP, Telaro E, D’Amico R, et al. Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ. 2005;330:1053. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38414.515938.8F.CrossRef

20.

Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2016;13:e1002028. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028.CrossRef

21.

Leyrat C, Caille A, Eldridge S, Kerry S, et al. Intervention effect estimates in cluster randomized versus individually randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study. Int J Epidemiol. 2019:609–19.

22.

Alba AC, Alexander PE, Chang J, et al. High statistical heterogeneity is more frequent in meta-analysis of continuous than binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;70:129–35.CrossRef

23.

Letrilliart L, Supper I, Schuers M, et al. ECOGEN : étude des Éléments de la COnsultation en médecine GENérale. Exercer. 2014;114:148–57.

24.

Gandhi GY, Murad MH, Fujiyoshi A, et al. Patient-important outcomes in registered diabetes trials. JAMA. 2008;299:2543–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.21.2543.CrossRef

25.

Rahimi K, Malhotra A, Banning AP, et al. Outcome selection and role of patient reported outcomes in contemporary cardiovascular trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2010;341:c5707. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5707.CrossRef

Title: Intervention effect estimates in randomised controlled trials conducted in primary care versus secondary or tertiary care settings: a meta-epidemiological study
Authors: Amandine Dugard
Elsa Tavernier
Agnès Caille
Agnès Dechartres
Adeline Hoang
Bruno Giraudeau
Clarisse Dibao-Dina
Publication date: 01-12-2022
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keyword: Care
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01815-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Intervention effect estimates in randomised controlled trials conducted in primary care versus secondary or tertiary care settings: a meta-epidemiological study

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

The first step is recognizing there is a problem: a methodology for adjusting for variability in disease severity when estimating clinician performance

Estimating causal effects in the presence of competing events using regression standardisation with the Stata command standsurv

Prediction of congenital heart disease for newborns: comparative analysis of Holt-Winters exponential smoothing and autoregressive integrated moving average models

Sample size recalculation based on the prevalence in a randomized test-treatment study

Estimation of average treatment effect based on a multi-index propensity score

Blinded sample size re-estimation in a comparative diagnostic accuracy study