Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study

Objective To assess the influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates within meta-analyses. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources 93 meta-analyses (735 randomised controlled trials) assessing therapeutic interventions with binary outcomes, published in the 10 leading journals of each medical subject category of the Journal Citation Reports or in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Data extraction Sample size, outcome data, and risk of bias extracted from each trial. Data synthesis Trials within each meta-analysis were sorted by their sample size: using quarters within each meta-analysis (from quarter 1 with 25% of the smallest trials, to quarter 4 with 25% of the largest trials), and using size groups across meta-analyses (ranging from <50 to ≥1000 patients). Treatment effects were compared within each meta-analysis between quarters or between size groups by average ratios of odds ratios (where a ratio of odds ratios less than 1 indicates larger effects in smaller trials). Results Treatment effect estimates were significantly larger in smaller trials, regardless of sample size. Compared with quarter 4 (which included the largest trials), treatment effects were, on average, 32% larger in trials in quarter 1 (which included the smallest trials; ratio of odds ratios 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.82), 17% larger in trials in quarter 2 (0.83, 0.75 to 0.91), and 12% larger in trials in quarter 3 (0.88, 0.82 to 0.95). Similar results were obtained when comparing treatment effect estimates between different size groups. Compared with trials of 1000 patients or more, treatment effects were, on average, 48% larger in trials with fewer than 50 patients (0.52, 0.41 to 0.66) and 10% larger in trials with 500-999 patients (0.90, 0.82 to 1.00). Conclusions Treatment effect estimates differed within meta-analyses solely based on trial sample size, with stronger effect estimates seen in small to moderately sized trials than in the largest trials

Timing and Completeness of Trial Results Posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and Published in Journals

Background: The US Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act requires results from clinical trials of Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs to be posted at ClinicalTrials.gov within 1 y after trial completion. We compared the timing and completeness of results of drug trials posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in journals. Methods and Findings: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov on March 27, 2012, for randomized controlled trials of drugs with posted results. For a random sample of these trials, we searched PubMed for corresponding publications. Data were extracted independently from ClinicalTrials.gov and from the published articles for trials with results both posted and published. We assessed the time to first public posting or publishing of results and compared the completeness of results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov versus published in journal articles. Completeness was defined as the reporting of all key elements, according to three experts, for the flow of participants, efficacy results, adverse events, and serious adverse events (e.g., for adverse events, reporting of the number of adverse events per arm, without restriction to statistically significant differences between arms for all randomized patients or for those who received at least one treatment dose). From the 600 trials with results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov, we randomly sampled 50% (n = 297) had no corresponding published article. For trials with both posted and published results (n = 202), the median time between primary completion date and first results publicly posted was 19 mo (first quartile = 14, third quartile = 30 mo), and the median time between primary completion date and journal publication was 21 mo (first quartile = 14, third quartile = 28 mo). Reporting was significantly more complete at ClinicalTrials.gov than in the published article for the flow of participants (64% versus 48% of trials, p<0.001), efficacy results (79% versus 69%, p = 0.02), adverse events (73% versus 45%, p<0.001), and serious adverse events (99% versus 63%, p<0.001). The main study limitation was that we considered only the publication describing the results for the primary outcomes. Conclusions: Our results highlight the need to search ClinicalTrials.gov for both unpublished and published trials. Trial results, especially serious adverse events, are more completely reported at ClinicalTrials.gov than in the published article

Impact of single centre status on estimates of intervention effects in trials with continuous outcomes: meta-epidemiological study

Objective To compare estimates of intervention effects between single centre and multicentre randomised controlled trials with continuous outcomes

Knee Arthroplasty: Disabilities in Comparison to the General Population and to Hip Arthroplasty Using a French National Longitudinal Survey

International audienceBACKGROUND: Knee arthroplasty is increasing exponentially due to the aging of the population and to the broadening of indications. We aimed to compare physical disability and its evolution over two years in people with knee arthroplasty to that in the general population. A secondary objective was to compare the level of disabilities of people with knee to people with hip arthroplasty. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: 16,945 people representative of the French population were selected in 1999 from the French census and interviewed about their level of disability. This sample included 815 people with lower limb arthroplasty. In 2001, 608 of them were re-interviewed, among whom 134 had knee arthroplasty. Among the other participants re-interviewed, we identified 68 who had undergone knee arthroplasty and 145 hip arthroplasty within the last two years (recent arthroplasty). People with knee arthroplasty reported significantly greater difficulties than the general population with bending forward (odds ratio [OR] = 4.7; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7, 12.6), walking more than 500 meters (OR = 6.0; 95% CI: 1.5, 24.7) and carrying 5 kg kilograms for 10 meters (OR = 4.6; 95% CI: 1.3, 16.4). However, the two years evolution in disability was similar to that in the general population for most activities. The level of mobility was similar between people with recent knee arthroplasty and those with recent hip arthroplasty. Nevertheless, people with recent knee arthroplasty reported a lower level of disability than the other group for washing and bending forward (OR = 0.3; 95% CI: 0.1, 0.6 and OR = 0.4; 95% CI: 0.1, 0.9, respectively). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: People with knee arthroplasty reported a higher risk of disability than the general population for common activities of daily living but a similar evolution. There was no relevant difference between recent knee and hip arthroplasties for mobility

Methods of Blinding in Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials Assessing Pharmacologic Treatments: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Blinding is a cornerstone of therapeutic evaluation because lack of blinding can bias treatment effect estimates. An inventory of the blinding methods would help trialists conduct high-quality clinical trials and readers appraise the quality of results of published trials. We aimed to systematically classify and describe methods to establish and maintain blinding of patients and health care providers and methods to obtain blinding of outcome assessors in randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatments. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We undertook a systematic review of all reports of randomized controlled trials assessing pharmacologic treatments with blinding published in 2004 in high impact-factor journals from Medline and the Cochrane Methodology Register. We used a standardized data collection form to extract data. The blinding methods were classified according to whether they primarily (1) established blinding of patients or health care providers, (2) maintained the blinding of patients or health care providers, and (3) obtained blinding of assessors of the main outcomes. We identified 819 articles, with 472 (58%) describing the method of blinding. Methods to establish blinding of patients and/or health care providers concerned mainly treatments provided in identical form, specific methods to mask some characteristics of the treatments (e.g., added flavor or opaque coverage), or use of double dummy procedures or simulation of an injection. Methods to avoid unblinding of patients and/or health care providers involved use of active placebo, centralized assessment of side effects, patients informed only in part about the potential side effects of each treatment, centralized adapted dosage, or provision of sham results of complementary investigations. The methods reported for blinding outcome assessors mainly relied on a centralized assessment of complementary investigations, clinical examination (i.e., use of video, audiotape, or photography), or adjudication of clinical events. CONCLUSIONS: This review classifies blinding methods and provides a detailed description of methods that could help trialists overcome some barriers to blinding in clinical trials and readers interpret the quality of pharmalogic trials

Delphi-Consensus Weights for Ischemic and Bleeding Events to Be Included in a Composite Outcome for RCTs in Thrombosis Prevention

To weight ischemic and bleeding events according to their severity to be used in a composite outcome in RCTs in the field of thrombosis prevention.Using a Delphi consensus method, a panel of anaesthesiology and cardiology experts rated the severity of thrombotic and bleeding clinical events. The ratings were expressed on a 10-point scale. The median and quartiles of the ratings of each item were returned to the experts. Then, the panel members evaluated the events a second time with knowledge of the group responses from the first round. Cronbach's a was used as a measure of homogeneity for the ratings. The final rating for each event corresponded to the median rating obtained at the last Delphi round.Of 70 experts invited, 32 (46%) accepted to participate. Consensus was reached at the second round as indicated by Cronbach's a value (0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00)) so the Delphi was stopped. Severity ranged from under-popliteal venous thrombosis (median = 3, Q1 = 2; Q3 = 3) to ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage with severe disability at 7 days and massive pulmonary embolism (median = 9, Q1 = 9; Q3 = 9). Ratings did not differ according to the medical specialty of experts.These ratings could be used to weight ischemic and bleeding events of various severity comprising a composite outcome in the field of thrombosis prevention

Geographical Representativeness of Published and Ongoing Randomized Controlled Trials. The Example of: Tobacco Consumption and HIV Infection

BACKGROUND: The challenge for evidence-based healthcare is to reduce mortality and the burden of diseases. This study aimed to compare where research is conducted to where research is needed for 2 public health priorities: tobacco consumption and HIV infection. METHODS: We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in Cochrane systematic reviews published between 1997 and 2007 and registered ongoing RCTs identified in January 2009 through the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) evaluating interventions aimed at reducing or stopping tobacco use and treating or preventing HIV infection. We used the WHO and World Bank reports to classify the countries by income level, as well as map the global burden of disease and mortality attributable to tobacco use and HIV infection to the countries where the trials performed. RESULTS: We evaluated 740 RCTs included in systematic reviews and 346 ongoing RCTs. For tobacco use, 4% of RCTs included in systematic reviews and 2% of ongoing trials were performed in low- and middle-income countries, even though these countries represented 70% of the mortality related to tobacco use. For HIV infection, 31% of RCTs included in systematic reviews and 33% of ongoing trials were performed in low- and middle-income countries, even though these countries represented 99% of the mortality related to HIV infection. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight an important underrepresentation of low- and middle-income countries in currently available evidence (RCTs included in systematic reviews) and awaiting evidence (registered ongoing RCTs) for reducing or stopping tobacco use and treating or preventing HIV infection

Premedication for Neonates Requiring Nonemergency Intubation Reply

International audienc

Patient-important outcomes in systematic reviews: Poor quality of evidence.

Cochrane reviewers are strongly encouraged to evaluate the quality of evidence for the most important outcomes by using the GRADE approach and to report these results in a Summary of Findings (SoF) table. We aimed to assess whether outcomes reported in the SoF table of Cochrane reviews could be considered patient-important outcomes (PIOs) and the quality of the available evidence for these outcomes.We performed a methodological review of Cochrane reviews published between March 2011 and September 2014. For a random sample of Cochrane reviews reporting a SoF table, we extracted all outcomes reported in this table and evaluated whether they could be considered PIOs (i.e., mortality, other clinical events, adverse events, function, pain, quality of life and therapeutic decisions). Then, we collected the quality of evidence for every outcome in these SoF tables.We included 290 reviews issued by 47 of the 53 Cochrane Review Groups. Every SoF table included a median of 5 outcomes, for a total of 1414 outcomes; 1089 (77%) could be considered PIOs. Almost all reviews (n = 278, 96%) included at least one PIO in their SoF table. The quality of evidence for the outcomes was high for 12% (n = 168), moderate for 28% (n = 402) and low or very low for 45% (n = 640). Less than one quarter of reviews (n = 63) included at least one PIO with high-quality evidence that favoured a benefit of the experimental intervention evaluated in half of them (n = 34 reviews).Many outcomes reported in the SoF table of recent Cochrane reviews can be considered PIOs. However, the quality of available evidence remains limited for these outcomes