Forty-five years of schizophrenia trials in Italy: a survey

Trials

Corrado Barbui³  Clive Adams¹  Marianna Purgato² 

[1] Division of Psychiatry, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK;Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Section of Psychiatry, University of Verona, Piazzale L.A. Scuro, 10-37134 Verona, Italy;Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Section of Psychiatry, University of Verona, Verona, Italy

关键词: Italy;    randomized controlled trials;    quality;    psychopharmacology;    schizophrenia;   

Others  :  1095640
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-13-35

 received in 2011-10-03, accepted in 2012-04-12,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Well-designed and properly executed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence on the efficacy of healthcare interventions. Mental health has a strong tradition of using trial to evaluate treatments, but the translation of research to clinical practice is not always easy. Even well-conducted trials do not necessarily address the needs of every day care and trials can reflect local needs and the specific culture in which they are undertaken. Generalizing results to other contexts can become problematic but these trials may, nevertheless, be very helpful within their own context. Moreover, pathways for drug approval can be different depending on local regulatory agencies. Local trials are helpful for decision-making in the region from which they come, but should not be viewed in isolation. National quantity and quality of trials may vary across nations.

The aim of this study is to quantify trialing activity in Italy from 1948 until 2009 and to describe characteristics of these trials. In addition, we evaluated change over time in three keys aspects: sample size, follow-up duration, and number of outcomes.

Methods

We used the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register that contains 16,000 citations to 13,000 studies relating only to people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illness. Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials undertaken in Italy and involving pharmacological interventions were included.

Results

The original search identified 155 records of potentially eligible studies, 74 of which were excluded because do not meet inclusion criteria. A total of 81 studies were included in the analysis. The majority of trials were conducted in north Italy, and published in international journals between 1981 and 1995. The majority of studies (52 out of 81) used standardized diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia disorder. They were defined as randomized and used blind methods to administer treatment. However, most failed to report detail regarding methodological procedures and it is difficult to ascertain which studies are associated with a low risk of bias.

Conclusions

Trials should be designed to address the needs of everyday care with the aim of following large samples of typical patients in the long term. The Italian tradition in the area of trialing treatments for people with schizophrenia is not as strong as in many other similar countries and Italy should be producing more, better, independent, and clinically relevant trials.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Purgato et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Petrarca F: Rerum Senilium Libri. Liber XIV, Epistola 1. Letter to Boccaccio. 1364., 3
• [2]Fioravanti L: Communication addressed to "Illustrissimo e Eccellentissimo Signor Al Protofisico Boldon e al Vicario di Giustizia. 1573.
• [3]Medical Research Council: Streptomycin treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis: a medical research council investigation. BMJ 1948, 2:769-782.
• [4]Thornley B, Adams C: Content and quality of 2000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 50 years. BMJ 1998, 317:1181-1184.
• [5]Moll C, Gessler U, Bartsch S, El-Sayeh HG, Fenton M, Adams CE: Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and productivity of schizophrenia trials: an ecological study. BMC Psychiatry 2003, 3:18. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Chakrabarti A, Adams CE, Rathbone J, Wright J, Xia J, Wong W, Von Reibnitz P, Koenig C, Baier S, Pfeiffer C, Blatter J, Mantz M, Kloeckner K: Schizophrenia trials in China: a survey. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2007, 116:6-9.
• [7]Xia J, Wright J, Adams CE: Five large Chinese biomedical bibliographic databases: accessibility and coverage. Health Info Libr J 2008, 25:55-61.
• [8]Zhang D, Yin P, Freemantle N, Jordan R, Zhong N, Cheng KK: An assessment of the quality of randomised controlled trials conducted in China. Trials 2008, 9:22. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Chen Y, Li J, Ai C, Duan Y, Wang L, Zhang M, Hopewell S: Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in five leading Chinese medical journals. PLoS One 2010, 5:e11926.
• [10]Koesters M, Zhang Y, Ma YC, Weinmann S, Becker T, Jin WD: What can we learn from Chinese randomized controlled trials? A systematic review and meta-analysis of Chinese venlafaxine studies. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2011, 31:194-200.
• [11]Adams CE, Tharyan P, Coutinho ES, Stroup TS: The schizophrenia drug-treatment paradox: pharmacological treatment based on best possible evidence may be hardest to practise in high-income countries. Br J Psychiatry 2006, 189:391-392.
• [12]Bucur M, Adams C: Romanian psychiatric literature: analysis of accessibility and nature of Romanian psychiatric articles. Health Info Libr J 2010, 27:140-147.
• [13]Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, Pitkin R, Rennie D, Schulz KF, Simel D, Stroup DF: Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996, 276:637-639.
• [14]Zhang D, Freemantle N, Cheng KK: Are randomized trials conducted in China or India biased? A comparative empirical analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64:90-95.
• [15]Purgato M, Cipriani A, Barbui C: Randomized trials published in Chinese or Western journals: comparative empirical analysis. J Clin Psychopharmacol, in press.
• [16]Purgato M, Barbui C, Cipriani A: Assessing risk of bias in randomized controlled trials. Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc 2010, 19:296-297.
• [17]Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D: CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Pharmacol Pharmacother 2010, 1:100-107.
• [18]Altman DG: Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journals: survey of instructions for authors. BMJ 2005, 330:1056-1057.
• [19]Barbui C, Baschirotto C, Cipriani A: EMA must improve the quality of its clinical trial reports. BMJ 2011, 342:d2291.
• [20]Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, Treweek S, Furberg CD, Altman DG, Tunis S, Bergel E, Harvey I, Magid D, Chalkidou K: A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. CMAJ 2009, 180:E47-E57.
• [21]Tosh G, Soares-Weiser K, Adams CE: Pragmatic vs explanatory trials: the pragmascope tool to help measure differences in protocols of mental health randomized controlled trials. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 2011, 13:209-215.
• [22]Clarke M: Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews. Trials 2007, 8:39. BioMed Central Full Text