Opinions on registering trial details: a survey of academic researchers

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The World Health Organization (WHO) has established a set of items related to study design and administrative information that should build the minimum set of data in a study register. A more comprehensive data set for registration is currently developed by the Ottawa Group. Since nothing is known about the attitudes of academic researchers towards prospective study registration, we surveyed academic researchers about their opinion regarding the registration of study details proposed by the WHO and the Ottawa Group.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a web-based survey of academic researchers currently running an investigator-initiated clinical study which is registered with clinicaltrials.gov. In July 2006 we contacted 1299 principal investigators of clinical studies by e-mail explaining the purpose of the survey and a link to access a 52-item questionnaire based on the proposed minimum data set by the Ottawa Group. Two reminder e-mails were sent each two weeks apart. Association between willingness to disclose study details and study phase was assessed using the chi-squared test for trend. To explore the potential influence of non-response bias we used logistic regression to assess associations between factors associated with non-response and the willingness to register study details.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall response was low as only 282/1299 (22%) principal investigators participated in the survey. Disclosing study documents, in particular the study protocol and financial agreements, was found to be most problematic with only 31% of respondents willing to disclose these publicly. Consequently, only 34/282 (12%) agreed to disclose all details proposed by the Ottawa Group. Logistic regression indicated no association between characteristics of non-responders and willingness to disclose details.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Principal investigators of non-industry sponsored studies are reluctant to disclose all data items proposed by the Ottawa Group. Disclosing the study protocol and financial agreements was found to be most problematic. Future discussions on trial registration should not only focus on industry but also on academic researchers.</p

Patients' preferences for adjuvant endocrine therapy in early breast cancer: what makes it worthwhile?

Adjuvant endocrine therapy improves recurrence and survival rates, but has side effects and is inconvenient. The aim of this study was to determine the preferences of premenopausal women who had adjuvant endocrine therapy in a randomised trial. In all, 85 (or eighty-five) women completed semistructured interviews 6–30 months after finishing adjuvant endocrine therapy. Hypothetical scenarios based on known potential survival times (5 or 15 years) and rates (60% or 80% at 5 years) without adjuvant endocrine therapy were used to determine the smallest gains women judged necessary to make their adjuvant endocrine therapy worthwhile. Although a third of the women considered gains of 1% in survival rates or 6 months in survival times sufficient to make their adjuvant endocrine therapy worthwhile, more than half the women required gains of at least 5% in survival rates or 3 years in survival time as necessary to make adjuvant endocrine therapy worthwhile. Larger benefits were required by women who had longer treatment, worse side effects, and by those who were treated with goserelin alone. The route of administration (tablet vs injection) did not affect preferences and some women judged small benefits sufficient to make their adjuvant endocrine therapy worthwhile, but many women required larger benefits than their counterparts in similar studies of preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy

"Summary Page": a novel tool that reduces omitted data in research databases

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Data entry errors are common in clinical research databases. Omitted data are of particular concern because they are more common than erroneously inserted data and therefore could potentially affect research findings. However, few affordable strategies for their prevention are available.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We have conducted a prospective observational study of the effect of a novel tool called "<it>Summary Page</it>" on the frequency of correction of omitted data errors in a radiation oncology research database between July 2008 and March 2009. "<it>Summary Page</it>" was implemented as an optionally accessed screen in the database that visually integrates key fields in the record. We assessed the frequency of omitted data on the example of the <it>Date of Relapse </it>field. We considered the data in this field to be omitted for all records that had empty <it>Date of Relapse </it>field and evidence of relapse elsewhere in the record.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 1,156 records were updated and 200 new records were entered in the database over the study period. "<it>Summary Page</it>" was accessed for 44% of all updated records and for 69% of newly entered records. Frequency of correction of the omitted date of cancer relapse was six-fold higher in records for which "<it>Summary Page</it>" was accessed (p = 0.0003).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>"<it>Summary Page</it>" was strongly associated with an increased frequency of correction of omitted data errors. Further, controlled, studies are needed to confirm this finding and elucidate its mechanism of action.</p

Confirmation of double-peaked time distribution of mortality among Asian breast cancer patients in a population-based study

INTRODUCTION: Double-peaked time distributions of the mortality hazard function have been reported for breast cancer patients from Western populations treated with mastectomy alone. These are thought to reflect accelerated tumour growth at micrometastatic sites mediated by angiogenesis after primary tumour removal as well as tumor dormancy. Similar data are not available for Asian populations. We sought to investigate whether differences exist in the pattern of mortality hazard function between Western breast cancer patients and their Asian counterparts in Singapore, which may suggest underlying differences in tumor biology between the two populations. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of female unilateral breast cancer patients diagnosed in Singapore between October 1994 and June 1999. Data regarding patient demographics, tumour characteristics and death were available. Overall survival curves were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The hazard rate was calculated as the conditional probability of dying in a time interval, given that the patient was alive at the beginning of the interval. The life table method was used to calculate the yearly hazard rates. RESULTS: In the 2,105 women identified, 956 patients (45.4%) had mastectomy alone. Demographic characteristics were as follows: 86.5% were Chinese, 45.2% were postmenopausal, 38.9% were hormone receptor positive, 54.6% were node negative and 44.1% had high histological grade. We observed a double-peaked mortality hazard pattern, with a first peak in mortality achieving its maximum between years 2 and 4 after mastectomy, and a second large peak in mortality during year 9. Analyses by subgroups revealed a similar pattern regardless of T stage, or node or menopausal status. This pattern was also noted in high-grade tumors but not in those that were well to moderately differentiated. The double-peaked pattern observed in Singaporean women was quantitatively and qualitatively similar to those reported in Western series. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms the existence of a double-peaked process in Asian patients, and it gives further support to the tumour dormancy hypothesis after mastectomy

Following 411 Cochrane Protocols to Completion: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Cochrane reviews are regarded as being scientifically rigorous and are increasingly used by a variety of stakeholders. However, factors predicting the publication of Cochrane reviews have never been reported. This is important because if a higher proportion of Cochrane protocols with certain characteristics (e.g., funding) are being published, this may lead to inaccurate decisions. We examined the frequency of published and unpublished Cochrane reviews and protocol factors that predict the publication of Cochrane reviews.Retrospective cohort study of Cochrane protocols published in 2000 (Issues 2 to 4) and 2001 (Issue 1). The publication status of these reviews was followed up to Issue 1, 2008 in The Cochrane Library. Survival analysis of the time from protocol publication to the first review publication and protocol factors predicting the time to publication was conducted. There were 411 new Cochrane protocols in the cohort. After excluding 39; 71/372 (19.1%) were unpublished and 301/372 (80.9%) were published as full Cochrane reviews at the time of study analysis (January 2008). The median time to publication was 2.4 years (range: 0.15 to 8.96). Multivariate analyses revealed that shorter time to publication was associated with the review subsequently being updated (hazard ratio, HR: 1.80 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.39 to 2.33 years]) and longer time to publication was associated with the review having two published protocols, indicating changes to the review plan (HR: 0.33 [95% CI: 0.12 to 0.90 years]).Only about 80% Cochrane protocols were published as full reviews after over 8 years of follow-up. The median time to publication was 2.4 years and some reviews took much longer. Strategies to decrease time to publication should be considered, such as streamlining the review process, increased support for authors when protocol amendments occur, and better infrastructure for updating Cochrane reviews

Do multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment?

BACKGROUND: Readers may question the interpretation of findings in clinical trials when multiple outcome measures are used without adjustment of the p-value. This question arises because of the increased risk of Type I errors (findings of false "significance") when multiple simultaneous hypotheses are tested at set p-values. The primary aim of this study was to estimate the need to make appropriate p-value adjustments in clinical trials to compensate for a possible increased risk in committing Type I errors when multiple outcome measures are used. DISCUSSION: The classicists believe that the chance of finding at least one test statistically significant due to chance and incorrectly declaring a difference increases as the number of comparisons increases. The rationalists have the following objections to that theory: 1) P-value adjustments are calculated based on how many tests are to be considered, and that number has been defined arbitrarily and variably; 2) P-value adjustments reduce the chance of making type I errors, but they increase the chance of making type II errors or needing to increase the sample size. SUMMARY: Readers should balance a study's statistical significance with the magnitude of effect, the quality of the study and with findings from other studies. Researchers facing multiple outcome measures might want to either select a primary outcome measure or use a global assessment measure, rather than adjusting the p-value

Adaptive Strategy for the Statistical Analysis of Connectomes

We study an adaptive statistical approach to analyze brain networks represented by brain connection matrices of interregional connectivity (connectomes). Our approach is at a middle level between a global analysis and single connections analysis by considering subnetworks of the global brain network. These subnetworks represent either the inter-connectivity between two brain anatomical regions or by the intra-connectivity within the same brain anatomical region. An appropriate summary statistic, that characterizes a meaningful feature of the subnetwork, is evaluated. Based on this summary statistic, a statistical test is performed to derive the corresponding p-value. The reformulation of the problem in this way reduces the number of statistical tests in an orderly fashion based on our understanding of the problem. Considering the global testing problem, the p-values are corrected to control the rate of false discoveries. Finally, the procedure is followed by a local investigation within the significant subnetworks. We contrast this strategy with the one based on the individual measures in terms of power. We show that this strategy has a great potential, in particular in cases where the subnetworks are well defined and the summary statistics are properly chosen. As an application example, we compare structural brain connection matrices of two groups of subjects with a 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, distinguished by their IQ scores

Completeness and Changes in Registered Data and Reporting Bias of Randomized Controlled Trials in ICMJE Journals after Trial Registration Policy

We assessed the adequacy of randomized controlled trial (RCT) registration, changes to registration data and reporting completeness for articles in ICMJE journals during 2.5 years after registration requirement policy.For a set of 149 reports of 152 RCTs with ClinicalTrials.gov registration number, published from September 2005 to April 2008, we evaluated the completeness of 9 items from WHO 20-item Minimum Data Set relevant for assessing trial quality. We also assessed changes to the registration elements at the Archive site of ClinicalTrials.gov and compared published and registry data.RCTs were mostly registered before 13 September 2005 deadline (n = 101, 66.4%); 118 (77.6%) started recruitment before and 31 (20.4%) after registration. At the time of registration, 152 RCTs had a total of 224 missing registry fields, most commonly 'Key secondary outcomes' (44.1% RCTs) and 'Primary outcome' (38.8%). More RCTs with post-registration recruitment had missing Minimum Data Set items than RCTs with pre-registration recruitment: 57/118 (48.3%) vs. 24/31 (77.4%) (χ(2) (1) = 7.255, P = 0.007). Major changes in the data entries were found for 31 (25.2%) RCTs. The number of RCTs with differences between registered and published data ranged from 21 (13.8%) for Study type to 118 (77.6%) for Target sample size.ICMJE journals published RCTs with proper registration but the registration data were often not adequate, underwent substantial changes in the registry over time and differed in registered and published data. Editors need to establish quality control procedures in the journals so that they continue to contribute to the increased transparency of clinical trials