'Allocation concealment': the evolution and adoption of a methodological term.

Random assignment of individual participants in clinical trials entails two steps: (i) generating an unbiased treatment allocation schedule; and (ii) applying the schedule without foreknowledge of upcoming allocations. These two steps were implicit in the famous randomized trial of streptomycin for pulmonary tuberculosis in 1948, and were recognized explicitly in some early books on controlled trials. However, half a century later, no widely accepted term denoting the process of concealing upcoming allocations had been adopted. In 1983 Thomas Chalmers and colleagues termed that process “randomization blinding,” and showed that blinded randomization and unblinded randomization were associated with differing estimates of treatment effects; however, their terminology was subsequently rarely used. In the mid-1990s we suggested that the term “allocation concealment” would be preferable to “blinded randomization,” particularly to avoid terminology that might be confused with blinding of treatments after random allocation. After controlling for more factors than had been accounted for by Chalmers and colleagues, we demonstrated an association between allocation concealment and estimates of treatment effects. Moreover, as further indication of bias, inadequately concealed trials displayed more heterogeneity than adequately concealed trials. Notably, our modeling and methodological approach to examine the associations between trial quality and estimates of treatment effects has gained recognition and achieved replication. A PubMed search for the term “allocation concealment” between 1972 and 1993 in “any field” yielded no instances, compared with 1471 between 1995 and 2016. Google Scholar found 25 matches before 1994 and over 30,000 matches after. Although the term might still be improved to avoid occasional misconceptions about its meaning, we assume that it has been widely adopted by authors and editors because they find the term useful

The HAC Trial (Harmonic for Acute Cholecystitis) Study. Randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of Harmonic(H) versus Monopolar Diathermy (M) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for acute cholecystitis (AC) in adults

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the developmental stage of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) it was considered 'unsafe' or 'technically difficult' to perform laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis (AC). With increasing experience in laparoscopic surgery, a number of centers have reported on the use of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis, suggesting that it is technically feasible but at the expense of a high conversion rate, which can be up to 35 per cent and common bile duct lesions.</p> <p>The HARMONIC SCALPEL(R) (H) is the leading ultrasonic cutting and coagulating surgical device, offering surgeons important benefits including: minimal lateral thermal tissue damage, minimal charring and desiccation.</p> <p>Harmonic Scalpel technology reduces the need for ligatures with simultaneous cutting and coagulation: moreover there is not electricity to or through the patient Harmonic Scalpel has a greater precision near vital structures and it produces minimal smoke with improved visibility in the surgical field.</p> <p>In retrospective series LC performed with H was demonstrated feasible and effective with minimal operating time and blood loss: it was reported also a low conversion rate (3.9%).</p> <p>However there are not prospective randomized controlled trials showing the advantages of H compared to MD (the commonly used electrical scalpel) in LC.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Aim of this RCT is to demonstrate that H can decrease the conversion rate compared to MD in LC for AC, without a significant increase of morbidity.</p> <p>The patients will be allocated in two groups: in the first group the patient will be submitted to early LC within 72 hours after the diagnosis with H while in the second group will be submitted to early LC within 72 hours with MD.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00746850</p

Managing clinical trials

Managing clinical trials, of whatever size and complexity, requires efficient trial management. Trials fail because tried and tested systems handed down through apprenticeships have not been documented, evaluated or published to guide new trialists starting out in this important field. For the past three decades, trialists have invented and reinvented the trial management wheel. We suggest that to improve the successful, timely delivery of important clinical trials for patient benefit, it is time to produce standard trial management guidelines and develop robust methods of evaluation

Funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality: are they related? Results of a pilot study

BACKGROUND: There has been increasing concern regarding the potential effects of the commercialization of research. METHODS: In order to examine the relationships between funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality, recent issues of five peer-reviewed, high impact factor, general medical journals were hand-searched to identify a sample of 100 randomized controlled trials (20 trials/journal). Relevant data, including funding source (industry/not-for-profit/mixed/not reported) and statistical significance of primary outcome (favouring new treatment/favouring conventional treatment/neutral/unclear), were abstracted. Quality scores were assigned using the Jadad scale and the adequacy of allocation concealment. RESULTS: Sixty-six percent of trials received some industry funding. Trial outcome was not associated with funding source (p= .461). There was a preponderance of favourable statistical conclusions among published trials with 67% reporting results that favored a new treatment whereas 6% favoured the conventional treatment. Quality scores were not associated with funding source or trial outcome. CONCLUSIONS: It is not known whether the absence of significant associations between funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality reflects a true absence of an association or is an artefact of inadequate statistical power, reliance on voluntary disclosure of funding information, a focus on trials recently published in the top medical journals, or some combination thereof. Continued and expanded monitoring of potential conflicts is recommended, particularly in light of new guidelines for disclosure that have been endorsed by the ICMJE

An assessment of the quality of randomised controlled trials conducted in China

Background: Despite the rapid increase in research in China, little is known about the quality of clinical trials conducted there.Methods: A systematic review and critical appraisal of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in China and published in 2004 was undertaken to describe their characteristics, assess the quality of their reporting, and where possible, the quality of their conduct. Randomised controlled trials in all disease areas and types of interventions, which took place in China and included Chinese citizens were identified using PubMed and hand searching the Journal Series of the Chinese Medical Association. Quality was assessed against a subset of criteria adapted from the CONSORT statement.Results: Three hundred and seven RCTs were included. One hundred and ninety-nine (64.8%) failed to report methods of randomization and 254 (82.4%) did not mention blinding of either participants or investigators. Reporting of baseline characteristics, primary outcome and length of follow-up was inadequate in a substantial proportion of studies. Fewer than 11% of RCTs mentioned ethical approval and only 18.0% adequately discussed informed consent. However, dropout rates were very favourable with nearly 44% of trials reporting a zero dropout rate.Conclusion: Reporting of RCTs in China requires substantial improvement to meet the targets of the CONSORT statement. The conduct of Chinese RCTs cannot be directly inferred from the standard of reporting; however without good reporting the methods of the trials cannot be clearly ascertained

The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials

Randomised evaluations of surgical interventions are rare; some interventions have been widely adopted without rigorous evaluation. Unlike other medical areas, the randomised controlled trial (RCT) design has not become the default study design for the evaluation of surgical interventions. Surgical trials are difficult to successfully undertake and pose particular practical and methodological challenges. However, RCTs have played a role in the assessment of surgical innovations and there is scope and need for greater use. This article will consider the design, conduct and analysis of an RCT of a surgical intervention. The issues will be reviewed under three headings: the timing of the evaluation, defining the research question and trial design issues. Recommendations on the conduct of future surgical RCTs are made. Collaboration between research and surgical communities is needed to address the distinct issues raised by the assessmentof surgical interventions and enable the conduct of appropriate and well-designed trials.The Health Services Research Unit is funded by the Scottish Government Health DirectoratesPeer reviewedPublisher PD

Development and evaluation of a quality score for abstracts

BACKGROUND: The evaluation of abstracts for scientific meetings has been shown to suffer from poor inter observer reliability. A measure was developed to assess the formal quality of abstract submissions in a standardized way. METHODS: Item selection was based on scoring systems for full reports, taking into account published guidelines for structured abstracts. Interrater agreement was examined using a random sample of submissions to the American Gastroenterological Association, stratified for research type (n = 100, 1992–1995). For construct validity, the association of formal quality with acceptance for presentation was examined. A questionnaire to expert reviewers evaluated sensibility items, such as ease of use and comprehensiveness. RESULTS: The index comprised 19 items. The summary quality scores showed good interrater agreement (intra class coefficient 0.60 – 0.81). Good abstract quality was associated with abstract acceptance for presentation at the meeting. The instrument was found to be acceptable by expert reviewers. CONCLUSION: A quality index was developed for the evaluation of scientific meeting abstracts which was shown to be reliable, valid and useful

No short-cut in assessing trial quality: a case study

Assessing the quality of included trials is a central part of a systematic review. Many check-list type of instruments for doing this exist. Using a trial of antibiotic treatment for acute otitis media, Burke et al., BMJ, 1991, as the case study, this paper illustrates some limitations of the check-list approach to trial quality assessment. The general verdict from the check list type evaluations in nine relevant systematic reviews was that Burke et al. (1991) is a good quality trial. All relevant meta-analyses extensively used its data to formulate therapeutic evidence. My comprehensive evaluation, on the other hand, brought to the surface a series of serious problems in the design, conduct, analysis and report of this trial that were missed by the earlier evaluations. A check-list or instrument based approach, if used as a short-cut, may at times rate deeply flawed trials as good quality trials. Check lists are crucial but they need to be augmented with an in-depth review, and where possible, a scrutiny of the protocol, trial records, and original data. The extent and severity of the problems I uncovered for this particular trial warrant an independent audit before it is included in a systematic review

Association of trial registration with the results and conclusions of published trials of new oncology drugs

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Registration of clinical trials has been introduced largely to reduce bias toward statistically significant results in the trial literature. Doubts remain about whether advance registration alone is an adequate measure to reduce selective publication, selective outcome reporting, and biased design. One of the first areas of medicine in which registration was widely adopted was oncology, although the bulk of registered oncology trials remain unpublished. The net influence of registration on the literature remains untested. This study compares the prevalence of favorable results and conclusions among published reports of registered and unregistered randomized controlled trials of new oncology drugs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a cross-sectional study of published original research articles reporting clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of drugs newly approved for antimalignancy indications by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 2000 through 2005. Drugs receiving first-time approval for indications in oncology were identified using the FDA web site and Thomson Centerwatch. Relevant trial reports were identified using PubMed and the Cochrane Library. Evidence of advance trial registration was obtained by a search of clinicaltrials.gov, WHO, ISRCTN, NCI-PDQ trial databases and corporate trial registries, as well as articles themselves. Data on blinding, results for primary outcomes, and author conclusions were extracted independently by two coders. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression identified associations between favorable results and conclusions and independent variables including advance registration, study design characteristics, and industry sponsorship.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 137 original research reports from 115 distinct randomized trials assessing 25 newly approved drugs for treating cancer, the 54 publications describing data from trials registered prior to publication were as likely to report statistically significant efficacy results and reach conclusions favoring the test drug (for results, OR = 1.77; 95% CI = 0.87 to 3.61) as reports of trials not registered in advance. In multivariate analysis, reports of prior registered trials were again as likely to favor the test drug (OR = 1.29; 95% CI = 0.54 to 3.08); large sample sizes and surrogate outcome measures were statistically significant predictors of favorable efficacy results at p < 0.05. Subgroup analysis of the main reports from each trial (n = 115) similarly indicated that registered trials were as likely to report results favoring the test drug as trials not registered in advance (OR = 1.11; 95% CI = 0.44 to 2.80), and also that large trials and trials with nonstringent blinding were significantly more likely to report results favoring the test drug.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Trial registration alone, without a requirement for full reporting of research results, does not appear to reduce a bias toward results and conclusions favoring new drugs in the clinical trials literature. Our findings support the inclusion of full results reporting in trial registers, as well as protocols to allow assessment of whether results have been completely reported.</p