Literatura académica sobre el tema "Essais randomisés contrôlés"
Crea una cita precisa en los estilos APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard y otros
Consulte las listas temáticas de artículos, libros, tesis, actas de conferencias y otras fuentes académicas sobre el tema "Essais randomisés contrôlés".
Junto a cada fuente en la lista de referencias hay un botón "Agregar a la bibliografía". Pulsa este botón, y generaremos automáticamente la referencia bibliográfica para la obra elegida en el estilo de cita que necesites: APA, MLA, Harvard, Vancouver, Chicago, etc.
También puede descargar el texto completo de la publicación académica en formato pdf y leer en línea su resumen siempre que esté disponible en los metadatos.
Artículos de revistas sobre el tema "Essais randomisés contrôlés"
Simon, E. G., C. J. Arthuis y F. Perrotin. "L’aveugle dans les essais contrôlés randomisés". Gynécologie Obstétrique & Fertilité 41, n.º 2 (febrero de 2013): 144–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gyobfe.2012.12.005.
Texto completoDugard, A., E. Tavernier, A. Hoang, B. Giraudeau y C. Dibao-dina. "Essais contrôlés randomisés en soins primaires versus essais contrôlés randomisés en soins secondaires ou tertiaires : une approche méta-épidémiologique". Revue d'Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique 70 (mayo de 2022): S120—S121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respe.2022.03.061.
Texto completoGauvain, C. "Essais contrôlés randomisés : quelques clés méthodologiques pour comprendre". Revue des Maladies Respiratoires Actualités 13, n.º 2 (septiembre de 2021): 2S55–2S62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1877-1203(21)00097-5.
Texto completoLe Ray, C. y F. Goffinet. "Essais contrôlés randomisés en médecine périnatale : la panacée ?" Revue de médecine périnatale 3, n.º 2 (junio de 2011): 59–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12611-011-0113-4.
Texto completoGuillin, Vincent. "De quoi les essais contrôlés randomisés sont-ils capables ?" Cahiers philosophiques 133, n.º 2 (2013): 79. http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/caph.133.0079.
Texto completoLietz, Gabriel y Sarah Gebeile-Chauty. "Distraction osseuse symphysaire (volet 2) : quel protocole en 2018 ? Une revue systématique". L'Orthodontie Française 89, n.º 3 (septiembre de 2018): 279–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/orthodfr/2018027.
Texto completoJatteau, Arthur. "Les essais contrôlés randomisés. Une comparaison entre la médecine et l’économie". Philosophia Scientae, n.º 23-2 (24 de mayo de 2019): 85–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/philosophiascientiae.1933.
Texto completoKonrat, C., I. Boutron y P. Ravaud. "Représentation des sujets âgés et critères d’éligibilité dans les essais randomisés contrôlés". Revue d'Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique 57 (mayo de 2009): S35—S36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respe.2009.02.124.
Texto completoAfach, S., A. Chaimani, T. Evrenoglou, N. Oubaya, L. Le Cleach y É. Sbidian. "Utilisation du groupe placebo dans les essais contrôlés randomisés sur le psoriasis". Annales de Dermatologie et de Vénéréologie 147, n.º 12 (diciembre de 2020): A247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annder.2020.09.338.
Texto completoRives-Lange, C., N. Rassy, C. Carette, A. Phan, C. Barsamian, J. Thereaux, D. Moszkowicz, T. Poghosyan y S. Czernichow. "Soixante-dix ans de chirurgie bariatrique : une revue systématique des essais contrôlés randomisés". Nutrition Clinique et Métabolisme 36, n.º 1 (febrero de 2022): S24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nupar.2021.12.044.
Texto completoTesis sobre el tema "Essais randomisés contrôlés"
Poels-Estellat, Candice. "Choix du traitement comparateur dans les essais contrôlés randomisés". Paris 7, 2013. http://www.theses.fr/2013PA077145.
Texto completoChoice of the appropriate control treatment is a major scientifïc and ethical issue in clinical trials (CI). Taking the example of CT assessing biologics in rheumatoid arthritis which is a potentially severe condition with known effective treatment, we have shown that head-to-head trials are still exceptions and that placebo comparators are predominant, respectively 81 and 5 comparisons among the 102 assessed. Despite guidelines and risk of irreversible damage, 9 879 patients were randomized to control arms to receive no treatment or their previous ineffective treatment. Then, we compared the willingness of physicians to include a fïctional patient in a CT and their willingness to prescribe in a usual care context the control treatment of the CT to the same fïctional patient. We made a randomized internet based case-vignette survey and have shown that for 71% of fïctional patients, physicians considered it inappropriate in the context of usual care to prescribe the control treatment of real current CT for which these patients are eligible. However physicians would enrol two-third of these 71% fïctional patients in these CT in which they would be randomized to receive these inappropriate treatments. Control treatments chosen in these CT are not fair comparators. The ethical requirement of equipoise seemed to be violated here, exposing patients in control arms of such CT to irreversible deterioration. The scientifïc usefulness of their results for evidence-based decision making in clinical practice is questionable as it will not lead to comparative effectiveness data on safety and efficacy of available drugs
Gaudry, Stéphane. "Critères de jugement dans les essais contrôlés randomisés en réanimation". Thesis, Sorbonne Paris Cité, 2016. http://www.theses.fr/2016USPCC252/document.
Texto completoThe choice of relevant primary and secondary endpoints is an essential step of the design of a randomized controlled trial. In our first work, we conducted a systematic review on patient-important outcomes in randomized controlled trials in critically ill patients. Indeed, clinical decision-making by ICU physicians now pursues the goal of improving mean and long-term outcomes in survivors in addition to increasing their chance of survival. We defined patient-important outcomes as on one hand, outcomes involving mortality at any time, and on the other, quality of life and functional outcomes assessed after ICU discharge. We found that a minority of primary outcomes (27/112,24%) used in randomized controlled trials published in 2013, were patient-important outcomes and that mortality accounted for the vast majority of them. Our analysis of most recently published trials (first half 2016) showed that patient-important outcomes were used in the samelow proportions (25% of the primary outcomes were patient-important outcomes) We then addressed the question of how well withholding and with drawal of life support therapies(W-WLST) decisions were reported in RCT in critically ill patients and how such decisions could impact mortality as outcome measure in these trials. We found that W-WLST decisions, although being a daily concern in routine practice, were scarcely reported in these trials, since they appeared in only 6 of 65 (9%) during follow-up. We further explored the impact of an imbalance in such decisions between the 2 arms of a randomized controlled trial, through a simulation study. This simulation showed that the intervention could appear as protective, if the decision of W-WLST was delayed in the interventional arm, even though the intervention had no true effecton survival. Finally, we performed a randomized controlled study (Artificial Kidney Initiation in Kidney Injury,AKIKI) using mortality as primary outcome and paid attention to report the rate of W-WLSTdecisions in the 2 arms
Pereira, Bruno. "Développements méthodologiques des essais randomisés en clusters : application aux essais d'intervention". Montpellier 1, 2008. http://www.theses.fr/2008MON1T042.
Texto completoEkpe, Claire. "Influence des études prospectives, randomisées sur le pronostic des patients : étude comparative d'études observationnelles versus études randomisées contrôlées et impact sur la mortalité globale". Paris 13, 2004. http://www.theses.fr/2004PA130009.
Texto completoYavchitz, Amélie. "Communication des Résultats Scientifiques dans les Essais Randomisés Contrôlés et les Revues Systématiques". Sorbonne Paris Cité, 2015. http://www.theses.fr/2015USPCC272.
Texto completoRandomized controlled trials (RCT) and systematic reviews and meta-analyses are the cornerstones of therapeutic evaluation because they are considered to provide the highest level of evidence. An accurate and complete presentation by authors of all the important information in report of such studies is essential to allow a critical eppraisal of the study by readers. We defme spin as a specific way of reporting, deliberate or not, that can lead to a "beautification" of the data. No study evaluated the dissemination of spin and their impact on die study's interpretation. Furthermore, several studies focused on different elements that can affect the interpretation of research results, but none assessed the impact of adding a limitation section in abstract of systematic reviews. Finally, spin are frequent and classification was developed for spin in RCTs, however no classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been proposed. Our work showed that 1) spin are disseminated in press releases and news and they are associated with an overestimation of the beneficial effect of treatment, 2) the addition of a limitation section in abstract of systematic reviews and meta-analysis does not impact the confidence in the study results by readers. Finally, we developed a classification scheme of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyzes, and we ranked spin in abstract according to their perceived severity (i. E. The likelihood to distort the interpretation of the review)
Gueguen, Juliette. "Evaluation des médecines complémentaires : quels compléments aux essais contrôlés randomisés et aux méta-analyses ?" Thesis, Université Paris-Saclay (ComUE), 2017. http://www.theses.fr/2017SACLS072/document.
Texto completoComplementary medicines are numerous and varied, their use is widespread and increasing.Quality and quantity of evaluation data depend on the type of complementary medicines, but there are few consensual conclusions about their effectiveness, even in the case of abundant literature. We will start with an inventory of the adequacy of the conventional methods used for drug evaluation, namely randomized controlled trials (RCT) and meta-analyzes, for the evaluation of complementary medicines. Through three practical applications, we will then consider the contribution of other methods, less recognized to date in the field of evidence-based medicine but potentially contributive to shed light on other perspectives. In particular, we will discuss the advantages of mixed methods, qualitative studies and the exploitation of large health administrative databases. We will conduct a mixed-method review of the assessment of hypnosis for labor and childbirth, a qualitative study on the experience of qi gong by patients hospitalized for severe anorexia nervosa and we will study the potential of the French national health insurance database (SNIIRAM) to evaluate complementary medicines. The first two axis will lead us to question the choice of outcomes and measurement tools used in RCTs and to value and legitimate the patient's perspective. More broadly, it will invite us to question the hierarchical vision of qualitative and quantitative research that traditionally attributes supremacy to quantitative studies. It will encourage us to replace it with a synergistic vision of qualitative and quantitative approaches. The third axis will enable us to identify the current limits to the use of SNIIRAM for the evaluation of complementary medicines, both technically and in terms of representativeness. We will propose concrete measures to make its exploitation possible and relevant in the field of evaluation of complementary medicines.Finally, in the general discussion, we shall take account of the fact that the evaluation of complementary medicines is not part of a marketing authorization process. Thus, contrary to drug evaluation, complementary medicines evaluation does not always imply decision making. We will emphasize the importance of considering the aim (aim of knowledge or aim of decision) in the development of a research strategy. We will propose two different strategies based on the literature and the results from our three examples. Concerning the research strategy aimed at decision-making, we will show the importance of defining the intervention, identifying the relevant outcomes, and optimizing the intervention first, before carrying out pragmatic clinical trials to evaluate its effectiveness. We will discuss the regulatory challenges complementary medicine evaluation confronts us to, and stress the need to assess the safety of these practices by developing appropriate monitoring systems
Dechartres, Agnès. "Evaluation des caractéristiques des essais associées à l'effet traitement dans les méta-analyses". Paris 7, 2013. http://www.theses.fr/2013PA077069.
Texto completoMeta-analyses have become indispensable tools to synthesize available evidence. However, if the results of included studies are biased, the meta-analysis result will be biased. Meta-epidemiological studies are used to compare treatment effect estimates for trials with and without a characteristic of interest in collections of meta-analyses. They were used to study the influence of characteristics related to internal validity on treatment effect. Using a meta-epidemiological approach, we evaluated the effect of other trial characteristics on treatment effect in meta-analyses. We found larger treatment effect in single center than in multicenter trials. Then, we explored the influence of trial sample size on treatment effect within meta-analyses. We found that not only small but also moderate-sized trials showed a larger treatment effect than the largest trials within a meta-analysis. We questioned the best estimate of the treatment effect in a meta-analysis. In fact, most meta-analysis results are based on ail studies included, regardless of their risk of bias. We compared the effect of several strategies for analysis of treatment effect: meta-analysis of ail trials, meta-analysis restricted to trials at low risk of bias, meta-analysis restricted to the largest trials and results of the most precise trial. Our results showed that many meta-analyses included only trials at small or high-risk of bias. Among the meta-analyses with statistically significant treatment effect for the experimental arm, one quarter did not show any evidence of treatment effect when using one of the alternative strategies for analysis
Smail-Faugeron, Violaine. "Evaluation thérapeutique en médecine bucco-dentaire : comparaison entre essais randomisés split-mouth et en bras parallèles". Thesis, Paris 6, 2015. http://www.theses.fr/2015PA066174/document.
Texto completoSplit-mouth RCTs are common in oral health medicine. However, some authors have suggested that intervention effect estimates from split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs may differ. Besides, prospective registration of RCTs is currently the best solution to reporting bias. First, we performed a meta-epidemiological study to compare intervention effect estimates between split-mouth RCTs and parallel-arm RCTs. There was no sufficient evidence for a difference in intervention effect estimates derived from split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs investigating the same clinical question. Our results support the use of all available evidence in systematic reviews, including that from split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs, and authors should consider including split-mouth RCTs in their meta-analyses with suitable and appropriate statistical analysis. Second, we assessed how many split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs with results published in 2013 in a sample of oral health journals had been prospectively registered in trial registries. Of 317 identified RCTs, we showed that only 23% of RCTs were registered. Among those, 91% were registered retrospectively. We did not find any statistically significant difference between split-mouth and parallel-arm RCTs. In conclusion, we have proposed recommendations regarding the integration of splitmouth RCTs in research, from the point of view of researchers and of medical journal editors
Sautenet, Bénédicte. "Hétérogénéité des critères de jugement évalués dans les essais randomisés de néphroprotection". Sorbonne Paris Cité, 2015. http://www.theses.fr/2015USPCC214.
Texto completoOutcomes in randomized trials should fulfill high-standard metrological quality (reproducibility, validity, sensitivity to change) as well as clinical relevance. Scientific evidence revealed by clinical trials directly depends on the choice of such outcomes. In addition, the results of these trials and prior trials will be compared on the basis of these outcomes. The choice of similar outcomes for various trials in a same scientific field thus allows for the realization of meta-analyses and finally the optimization of patient care. We aimed to investigate the heterogeneity of outcomes in randomized trials of nephroprotection. First, we compared registered trials in two medical fields, rheumatology and nephroprotection. In rheumatology, an international consensus on outcomes has been established since 1992, whereas no such recommendations exist in the nephrologic field. We therefore compared the description of outcomes in each medical field by means of a score including domain, specific measurement, specific metrics, methods of aggregating data and time frame. These outcomes were then gathered in clusters evaluating the same concept via an international expert' s opinion. Once these clusters are defined, we evaluated the proportion of trials and patients that might be combined for each cluster in a putative meta-analysis. The quality score of outcomes was significantly lower for nephrology than rheumatology trials (odds ratio 4. 2 [95% confidence interval 2. 39; -7. 39], p <0. 001). Overall,. 20 outcomes were identified in each field: 13 clusters in rheumatology versus 8 in nephrology. In rheumatology, the cluster representing a single outcome (American College of Rheumatology response criteria) allowed for assessing 87. 1% of trials and 92. 8% of patients likely included in those trials. No such cluster existed in nephrology. These results resulted in lower homogeneity of the outcomes used in randomized trials in nephrology. Our second objective concerned meta-analysis of randomized trials in nephroprotection. We listed the outcomes used in each meta-analysis, then ascertained the proportion of trials associated with each outcome and identified 20 outcomes clustered in 6 subgroups: antiproteinuric impact, kidney efficiency, end-stage kidney disease, composite outcomes aggregating end-stage kidney disease, death and patient-reported outcomes. For each outcome, the proportion of systematic reviews in which the outcome could be meta-analyzed varied from 1. 5% to 50. 0%. Only 35. 5% of outcomes allowed for aggregating more than 75% of randomized trials. These results underline major divergences in the choice of outcomes in systematic reviews and the difficulties in combining trial
Mathieu, Sylvain. "Enregistrement des essais cliniques et biais de publication". Paris 7, 2013. http://www.theses.fr/2013PA077037.
Texto completoIntroduction. Evidence of selective outcome reporting in medical literature is well-known. In 2005, a policy requiring investigators to deposit information in a registry before study onset was initiated. This initiative ambitioned to reduce biases. This study aims to assess: 1)The frequency of trial registration since these recommandations 2)The adequacy between published articles and registers 3)The use of registered information by reviewers. Results: 1)In 40 of the 144 articles, the studies had been registered (27. 8%). Moreover, 24 reports (23%) contained misleading conclusions, of the 105 articles with a clear primary outcome (PO). Négative trial results were associated with misleading abstract conclusions. In the second study, of the 323 included trials, 147 (45. 5%) were adequately registered (i. E. , registered before the end of the trial, with the PO clearly specified). 2)Among the 147 articles with trials adequately registered, 46 (31%) showed some evidence of outcome reporting bias, of which, when the PO description was available, 82. 6% (19/23) had PO results that were statistically significant. 3)Of the 1,136 responses (37. 5%), 676 (59. 5%) had reviewed an article in the past 2 years. Among these, 232 (34. 3%) looked at a trial registry. If one or more items differed between the registry record and the manuscript, 206 reviewers mentioned the discrepancy in their review comments, 46 advised editors not to accept the manuscript. Conclusion. There is an increase in trial registration, and also discrepancies between registered and published information. However, the situation is encouraging because a third of reviewers already use registers in the peer-review process
Capítulos de libros sobre el tema "Essais randomisés contrôlés"
Benmarhnia, Tarik. "POURQUOI AIME-T-ON TANT LES ESSAIS CONTRÔLÉS RANDOMISÉS ?" En Les sociétés de l'expérimentation, 61–78. Presses de l'Université du Québec, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvhn0cr5.8.
Texto completoActas de conferencias sobre el tema "Essais randomisés contrôlés"
R, Mbusa Kambale, Ntagerwa Ntagazibwa J, Bwija Kasengi J, Burume Zigashane A, Nancy Francisca I, Ntaligeza Mashukano B, Amani Ngaboyeka G et al. "Probiotiques chez les enfants avec malnutrition aiguë sévère non compliquée : essai contrôlé randomisé en République Démocratique du Congo". En MSF Paediatric Days 2024. NYC: MSF-USA, 2024. http://dx.doi.org/10.57740/j1f5yd6.
Texto completoR, Mbusa Kambale, Ntagerwa Ntagazibwa J, Bwija Kasengi J, Burume Zigashane A, Nancy Francisca I, Ntaligeza Mashukano B, Amani Ngaboyeka G et al. "Probiotiques chez les enfants avec malnutrition aiguë sévère non compliquée (PRUSAM): Un essai contrôlé randomisé en République Démocratique du Congo". En MSF Paediatric Days 2024. NYC: MSF-USA, 2024. http://dx.doi.org/10.57740/hg75h4m.
Texto completoGruner, M., M. Pioche, C. Masliah, F. Dewaele, E. Metiver, D. Luet, M. Kaassis et al. "Narrow-Band Imaging (NBI) versus coloration Lugol dans la détection du carcinome de l'oesophage dans une population à haut risque: un essai contrôlé randomisé multicentrique en situation de vraie vie". En Journées Francophones d'Hépato-Gastroentérologie et d'Oncologie Digestive (JFHOD). Georg Thieme Verlag KG, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1623331.
Texto completo