A systematic review of models to predict recruitment to multicentre clinical trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Less than one third of publicly funded trials managed to recruit according to their original plan often resulting in request for additional funding and/or time extensions. The aim was to identify models which might be useful to a major public funder of randomised controlled trials when estimating likely time requirements for recruiting trial participants. The requirements of a useful model were identified as usability, based on experience, able to reflect time trends, accounting for centre recruitment and contribution to a commissioning decision.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic review of English language articles using MEDLINE and EMBASE. Search terms included: randomised controlled trial, patient, accrual, predict, enrol, models, statistical; Bayes Theorem; Decision Theory; Monte Carlo Method and Poisson. Only studies discussing prediction of recruitment to trials using a modelling approach were included. Information was extracted from articles by one author, and checked by a second, using a pre-defined form.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Out of 326 identified abstracts, only 8 met all the inclusion criteria. Of these 8 studies examined, there are five major classes of model discussed: the unconditional model, the conditional model, the Poisson model, Bayesian models and Monte Carlo simulation of Markov models. None of these meet all the pre-identified needs of the funder.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>To meet the needs of a number of research programmes, a new model is required as a matter of importance. Any model chosen should be validated against both retrospective and prospective data, to ensure the predictions it gives are superior to those currently used.</p

A literature review of the predictive validity of European dental school selection methods

© 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Non peer reviewedPostprin

Primary care professionals’ experiences during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Greece: a qualitative study

Background: The coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19) tested health care systems worldwide. This qualitative study aimed to explore and understand the experiences, beliefs and concerns of Primary Care Professionals (PCPs) regarding the preparedness and response of primary care to the first wave of the pandemic in Greece, a country where a public structured primary care system has been developing. Methods: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 33 PCPs (General Practitioners, community General Internal Medicine Specialists, community Paediatricians and nurses) recruited from all regions of Greece after the first wave of the pandemic (June 2020). Interviews were transcribed verbatim, data were anonymised and analysed. Thematic analysis was applied developing a conceptual framework. Results: Four main themes were identified: a) Primary care unit adaptation and issues faced during the pandemic; b) Management of suspected COVID-19 cases; c) Management of non-suspected cases; d) Consequences of the pandemic. In the first phase of the pandemic, remote management of suspected cases and their referral to the hospital were preferred as a result of a shortage of personal protective equipment and inaccessibility to coronavirus testing in primary care. Due to the discontinuation of regular medical services and the limited in-person contact between doctors and patients, chronic disease management and prevention programmes were left behind. Social and emotional consequences of the pandemic, such as workplace stigma, isolation and social seclusion, deriving from fear of viral transmission, as well as burnout symptoms and exhaustion were commonly experienced among PCPs. Positive consequences of the pandemic were considered to be the recognition of the importance of an empowered public healthcare system by citizens and the valuable insight, knowledge and experience professionals gained in times of crisis. Conclusions: Primary care has a key role to play during and after the pandemic by using its information infrastructure to identify at-risk groups, detect new cases of COVID-19, provide care according to needs, and carry out vaccination programmes. Central coordination and empowerment of primary care will increase its effectiveness, via public awareness, holistic patient management, and unburdening of hospitals

Planning a cluster randomized trial with unequal cluster sizes: practical issues involving continuous outcomes

BACKGROUND: Cluster randomization design is increasingly used for the evaluation of health-care, screeening or educational interventions. At the planning stage, sample size calculations usually consider an average cluster size without taking into account any potential imbalance in cluster size. However, there may exist high discrepancies in cluster sizes. METHODS: We performed simulations to study the impact of an imbalance in cluster size on power. We determined by simulations to which extent four methods proposed to adapt the sample size calculations to a pre-specified imbalance in cluster size could lead to adequately powered trials. RESULTS: We showed that an imbalance in cluster size can be of high influence on the power in the case of severe imbalance, particularly if the number of clusters is low and/or the intraclass correlation coefficient is high. In the case of a severe imbalance, our simulations confirmed that the minimum variance weights correction of the variation inflaction factor (VIF) used in the sample size calculations has the best properties. CONCLUSION: Publication of cluster sizes is important to assess the real power of the trial which was conducted and to help designing future trials. We derived an adaptation of the VIF from the minimum variance weights correction to be used in case the imbalance can be a priori formulated such as "a proportion (γ) of clusters actually recruit a proportion (τ) of subjects to be included (γ ≤ τ)"

Reporting of Adverse Events in Published and Unpublished Studies of Health Care Interventions : A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: We performed a systematic review to assess whether we can quantify the underreporting of adverse events (AEs) in the published medical literature documenting the results of clinical trials as compared with other nonpublished sources, and whether we can measure the impact this underreporting has on systematic reviews of adverse events. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Studies were identified from 15 databases (including MEDLINE and Embase) and by handsearching, reference checking, internet searches, and contacting experts. The last database searches were conducted in July 2016. There were 28 methodological evaluations that met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 9 studies compared the proportion of trials reporting adverse events by publication status. The median percentage of published documents with adverse events information was 46% compared to 95% in the corresponding unpublished documents. There was a similar pattern with unmatched studies, for which 43% of published studies contained adverse events information compared to 83% of unpublished studies. A total of 11 studies compared the numbers of adverse events in matched published and unpublished documents. The percentage of adverse events that would have been missed had each analysis relied only on the published versions varied between 43% and 100%, with a median of 64%. Within these 11 studies, 24 comparisons of named adverse events such as death, suicide, or respiratory adverse events were undertaken. In 18 of the 24 comparisons, the number of named adverse events was higher in unpublished than published documents. Additionally, 2 other studies demonstrated that there are substantially more types of adverse events reported in matched unpublished than published documents. There were 20 meta-analyses that reported the odds ratios (ORs) and/or risk ratios (RRs) for adverse events with and without unpublished data. Inclusion of unpublished data increased the precision of the pooled estimates (narrower 95% confidence intervals) in 15 of the 20 pooled analyses, but did not markedly change the direction or statistical significance of the risk in most cases. The main limitations of this review are that the included case examples represent only a small number amongst thousands of meta-analyses of harms and that the included studies may suffer from publication bias, whereby substantial differences between published and unpublished data are more likely to be published. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence that much of the information on adverse events remains unpublished and that the number and range of adverse events is higher in unpublished than in published versions of the same study. The inclusion of unpublished data can also reduce the imprecision of pooled effect estimates during meta-analysis of adverse events

Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias

BACKGROUND: The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. CONCLUSIONS: Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials

Thalidomide in the treatment of erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL): systematic review of clinical trials and prospects of new investigations

FUNDAMENTOS: A hanseníase persiste como problema de saúde pública, e episódios de ENH são eventos agudos que ocorrem antes, durante e após PQT. Na última década, o uso da talidomida como agente imunomodulador foi expandido a outras doenças. OBJETIVOS: realizar revisão sistemática dos ensaios clínicos publicados sobre a eficácia e efeitos colaterais da talidomida no ENH. Descrever metodologia e resultados da triagem para recrutamento de ensaio clínico visando avaliar dose-resposta da talidomida seguida de desmame no ENH moderado e grave, realizado no Brasil. MÉTODOS: Analisaram-se ensaios publicados sobre talidomida no ENH. Foi delineado um ensaio clínico duplo-cego randomizado para avaliar dose de 100 thalid 300mg/dia de talidomida durante fase aguda de ENH, seguida de desmame da talidomida, thalid placebo. Para este ensaio clínico descreve-se metodologia e dados de recrutamento de pacientes, com ênfase na gravidade dos episódios de ENH. RESULTADOS: Os seis ensaios clínicos publicados nas décadas de 1960 e 1970 apontam para o benefício da talidomida no ENH, embora diferenças metodológicas dificultem a comparação. Na fase de recrutamento do ensaio brasileiro, dos 143 pacientes de ENH triados, 65% eram potencialmente elegíveis. A associação com neurite em 56,4% dos ENH moderados e graves exigiu co-intervenção com corticosteróide. CONCLUSÃO: O padrão de recrutamento dos pacientes evidenciou alta freqüência de neurite nos episódios de ENH. O esquema de talidomida isolada no ENH foi avaliado como infreqüente na prática clínica brasileira. O desafio atual é acumular evidências sobre a eficácia e efeitos colaterais da talidomida em associação com corticosteróides.BACKGROUND: Leprosy remains a public health problem. Episodes of erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL) are acute events that occur before, during and after polychemotherapy. In the last decade, the use of thalidomide as an immunomodulating agent was expanded to other diseases. OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review of published clinical trials on efficacy and side effects of thalidomide in ENL. To describe the methodology and screening results of recruiting for a clinical trial performed in Brazil, which aimed to assess the dose-response of thalidomide followed by tapering regimen in severe and moderate cases of ENL. METHODS: Published clinical trials on the use of thalidomide in ENL were analyzed. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial was designed to evaluate the doses of 100mg versus 300mg/day thalidomide during the acute stage of ENL, followed by thalidomide tapering regimen versus placebo. For this clinical trial, the methodology and data for enrollment of patients were described, with an emphasis on severity of ENL episodes. RESULTS: Six clinical trials published in the 1960's and 1970's indicated the benefits of thalidomide in ENL, although methodological differences made comparison difficult. In the enrollment stage of the Brazilian trial, 65% of patients were potentially eligible out of 143 ENL patients screened. The association with neuritis in 56.4% of moderate and severe cases of ENL required the co-intervention with steroids. CONCLUSION: The patients' enrollment pattern demonstrated high frequency of neuritis in ENL episodes. The treatment regimen with thalidomide in monotherapy for ENL was considered infrequent in the clinical practice in Brazil. The current challenge is to accumulate evidence about efficacy and side effects of thalidomide in combination with steroids