A systematic review of the reporting of Data Monitoring Committees' roles, interim analysis and early termination in pediatric clinical trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Decisions about interim analysis and early stopping of clinical trials, as based on recommendations of Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs), have far reaching consequences for the scientific validity and clinical impact of a trial. Our aim was to evaluate the frequency and quality of the reporting on DMC composition and roles, interim analysis and early termination in pediatric trials.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials published from 2005 to 2007 in a sample of four general and four pediatric journals. We used full-text databases to identify trials which reported on DMCs, interim analysis or early termination, and included children or adolescents. Information was extracted on general trial characteristics, risk of bias, and a set of parameters regarding DMC composition and roles, interim analysis and early termination.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>110 of the 648 pediatric trials in this sample (17%) reported on DMC or interim analysis or early stopping, and were included; 68 from general and 42 from pediatric journals. The presence of DMCs was reported in 89 of the 110 included trials (81%); 62 papers, including 46 of the 89 that reported on DMCs (52%), also presented information about interim analysis. No paper adequately reported all DMC parameters, and nine (15%) reported all interim analysis details. Of 32 trials which terminated early, 22 (69%) did not report predefined stopping guidelines and 15 (47%) did not provide information on statistical monitoring methods.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Reporting on DMC composition and roles, on interim analysis results and on early termination of pediatric trials is incomplete and heterogeneous. We propose a minimal set of reporting parameters that will allow the reader to assess the validity of trial results.</p

Features distinguishing amoebic from pyogenic liver abscess: a review of 577 adult cases

Distinguishing amoebic from pyogenic liver abscesses is crucial because their treatments and prognoses differ. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 577 adults with liver abscess in order to identify clinical, laboratory, and radiographic factors useful in differentiating these microbial aetiologies. Presumptive diagnoses of amoebic (n = 471; 82%) vs. pyogenic (n = 106; 18%) abscess were based upon amoebic serology, microbiological culture results, and response to therapy. Patients with amoebic abscess were more likely to be young males with a tender, solitary, right lobe abscess (P = 0.012). Univariate analysis found patients with pyogenic abscess more likely to be over 50 years old, with a history of diabetes and jaundice, with pulmonary findings, multiple abscesses, amoebic serology titres \u3c1:256 IU, and lower levels of serum albumin (P \u3c 0.04). Multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed that age \u3e50 years, pulmonary findings on examination, multiple abscesses, and amebic serology titres \u3c1:256 IU were predictive of pyogenic infection. Several clinical and laboratory parameters can aid in the differentiation of amebic and pyogenic liver abscess. In our setting, amebic abscess is more prevalent and, in most circumstances, can be identified and managed without percutaneous aspiration