Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Objective

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

Design

Meta-epidemiological study.

Data sources

26 meta-analyses totalling 292 randomised controlled trials (177 single centre, 115 multicentre) with continuous outcomes published between January 2007 and January 2010 in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

Data extraction

Data were extracted on characteristics of trials, single or multicentre status, risk of bias using the risk of bias tool of the Cochrane Collaboration, and results.

Data synthesis

The intervention effects were estimated with standardised mean differences. For each meta-analysis, random effects meta-regression was used to estimate the difference in standardised mean differences between single centre and multicentre trials. Differences in standardised mean differences were then pooled across meta-analyses by a random-effects meta-analysis model. A combined difference in standardised mean differences of less than 0 indicated that single centre trials showed larger treatment effects, on average, than did multicentre trials. Because single centre trials may be more prone to publication bias and may have lower methodological quality than multicentre trials, sensitivity analyses were done with adjustment for sample size and domains of the risk of bias tool.

Results

Single centre trials showed larger intervention effects than did multicentre trials (combined difference in standardised mean differences -0.09, 95% confidence interval -0.17 to -0.01, P=0.04), with low heterogeneity across individual meta-analyses (I(2)=0%, between meta-analyses variance τ(2)=0.00). Adjustment for sample size slightly attenuated the difference (-0.08, -0.17 to 0.01). Adjustment for risk of bias yielded similar estimates with wider confidence intervals, some of them crossing 0 (-0.09, -0.17 to 0.00 for overall risk of bias).

Conclusions

On average, single centre clinical trials with continuous outcomes showed slightly larger intervention effects than did multicentre trials. Further research is needed to investigate potential causes of these differences.

SUBMITTER: Bafeta A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3279328 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine whether deviation from the standard intention to treat analysis has an influence on treatment effect estimates of randomised trials.DesignMeta-epidemiological study.Data sourcesMedline, via PubMed, searched between 2006 and 2010; 43 systematic reviews of interventions and 310 randomised trials were included.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesFrom each year searched, random selection of 5% of intervention reviews with a meta-analysis that included at least one trial that deviated from the standard intention to treat approach. Basic characteristics of the systematic reviews and randomised trials were extracted. Information on the reporting of intention to treat analysis, outcome data, risk of bias items, post-randomisation exclusions, and funding were extracted from each trial. Trials were classified as: ITT (reporting the standard intention to treat approach), mITT (reporting a deviation from the standard approach), and no ITT (reporting no approach). Within each meta-analysis, treatment effects were compared between mITT and ITT trials, and between mITT and no ITT trials. The ratio of odds ratios was calculated (value <1 indicated larger treatment effects in mITT trials than in other trial categories).Results50 meta-analyses and 322 comparisons of randomised trials (from 84 ITT trials, 118 mITT trials, and 108 no ITT trials; 12 trials contributed twice to the analysis) were examined. Compared with ITT trials, mITT trials showed a larger intervention effect (pooled ratio of odds ratios 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.96), P=0.01; between meta-analyses variance τ(2)=0.13). Adjustments for sample size, type of centre, funding, items of risk of bias, post-randomisation exclusions, and variance of log odds ratio yielded consistent results (0.80 (0.69 to 0.94), P=0.005; τ(2)=0.08). After exclusion of five influential studies, results remained consistent (0.85 (0.75 to 0.98); τ(2)=0.08). The comparison between mITT trials and no ITT trials showed no statistical difference between the two groups (adjusted ratio of odds ratios 0.92 (0.70 to 1.23); τ(2)=0.57).ConclusionsTrials that deviated from the intention to treat analysis showed larger intervention effects than trials that reported the standard approach. Where an intention to treat analysis is impossible to perform, authors should clearly report who is included in the analysis and attempt to perform multiple imputations.

Project description:Cancer is the leading cause of death among Asian Americans. While Asian Americans are the fastest growing minority population in the United States, they are underrepresented in cancer research and report poor adherence to cancer screening guidelines.This study utilized data from two large randomized intervention trials to evaluate strategies to recruit first-generation Chinese American immigrants from community settings and Chinese American physician practices. Findings will inform effective strategies for promoting Asian American participation in cancer control research.Chinese Americans who were non-adherent to annual mammography screening guidelines (Study 1 with 664 immigrant women > 40 years of age) and to colorectal cancer screening guidelines (Study 2 with 455 immigrants > 50 years of age) were enrolled from the greater Washington DC, New York City (NYC), and Philadelphia (PA) areas. Both studies trained bilingual staff to enroll Chinese-speaking participants with the aid of linguistically appropriate fliers and brochures to obtain consent. Study 1 adopted community approaches and worked with community organizations to enroll participants. Study 2 randomly selected potential participants through 24 Chinese American primary-care physician offices, and mailed letters from physicians to enroll patients, followed by telephone calls from research staff. The success of recruitment approaches was assessed by yield rates based on number of participants approached, ineligible, and consented.Most participants (70%) of Study 1 were enrolled through in-person community approaches (e.g., Chinese schools, stores, health fairs, and personal networks). The final yield of specific venues differed widely (6% to 100%) due to various proportions of ineligible subjects (2%-64%) and refusals (0%-92%). The Study 2 recruitment approach (physician letter followed by telephone calls) had different outcomes in two geographic areas, partially due to differences in demographic characteristics in the DC and NYC/PA areas. The community approaches enrolled more recent immigrants and uninsured Chinese Americans than the physician and telephone call approach (p < .001). Enrollment cost is provided to inform future research studies.Our recruitment outcomes might not be generalizable to all Chinese Americans or other Asian American populations because they may vary by study protocols (e.g., length of trials), target populations (i.e., eligibility criteria), and available resources.Use of multiple culturally relevant strategies (e.g., building trusting relationships through face-to-face enrollment, use of bilingual and bicultural staff, use of a physician letter, and employing linguistically appropriate materials) was crucial for successfully recruiting a large number of Chinese Americans in community and clinical settings. Our data demonstrate that substantial effort is required for recruitment; studies need to budget for this effort to ensure the inclusion of Asian Americans in health research.

Project description:To investigate the impact of a multifactorial treatment programme in a real-life setting on clinical outcomes and estimated cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk.A retrospective observational cohort study, using data from the electronic medical records and national registers.Tertiary diabetes centre in Denmark.Patients with type 2 diabetes (n=4299) referred to a programme with focus on treatment of hyperglycaemia, hypertension and dyslipidaemia between 1 January 2001 and 1 April 2016.Primary outcomes were changes in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol as well as proportion reaching treatment targets. Our secondary outcome was to investigate changes in antidiabetic, antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment, together with the impact on estimated CVD risk. Linear mixed model for repeated measurements were used for continuous variables and logistic regression for dichotomous variables.The patients achieved a mean±SD?decrease in HbA1c, systolic and diastolic BP and LDL cholesterol of 1.0%±0.04% (10.6±0.4?mmol/mol), 6.3±0.4?mm Hg, 2.7±0.2?mm Hg and 0.32±0.02?mmol/L, respectively (p<0.0001). The proportion of patients who met the treatment goal for HbA1c (<7% (<53?mmol/mol)) increased from 31% to 58% (p<0.0001); for BP (<130/80?mm Hg) from 24% to 34% (p<0.0001), and for LDL cholesterol (<2.5?mmol/L (patients without previous CVD) or <1.8?mmol/L (patients with previous CVD)) from 52% to 65%. Those reaching all three guideline treatment targets increased from 4% to 15% (p<0.0001), and when relaxing the BP target to <140/85 from 8% to 24%. The estimated CVD risk was relatively reduced by 15.2% using the Swedish National Diabetes Register risk engine and 30.9% using the UK Prospective Diabetes Study risk engine.Our data support that short-term multifactorial treatment of patients with glycaemic dysregulation in a specialist outpatient setting is both achievable and effective, and associated with a clinically meaningful improvement in CVD risk.