Information on blinding in registered records of clinical trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Viergever RF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3522538 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Information on blinding in registered records of clinical trials.
Viergever Roderik F RF Ghersi Davina D
Trials 20121115
Information on blinding is part of the data that should be provided upon registration of a trial at a clinical trials registry. Reporting of blinding is often absent or of low quality in published articles of clinical trials. This study researched the presence and quality of information on blinding in registered records of clinical trials and highlights the important role of data-recording formats at clinical trial registries in ensuring high-quality registration. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundReported off-label/unlicensed prescribing rates in children range from 11% to 80%. Research into pharmacokinetic profiles of children's medicines is essential in the creation of more knowledge on the safety and efficacy of medicines in children. This study investigated how often pharmacokinetic data are collected in clinical trials of medicines in children by analysing registered records of clinical trials.MethodsThe registered records of all clinical trials in children that were recruiting on 22 May 2009 were identified on the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform using a Clinical Trials in Children search filter. The records of trials in children below 12 years of age, in which the intervention was one or more medicines, were assessed for evidence that pharmacokinetic data would be collected.ResultsOf 1081 eligible trial records, 257 (24%) declared that pharmacokinetic data would be collected. Of these trials, 199 (77%) recruited in Northern America; recruitment in all other regions was below 20%. Trials recruited most often in children over 2 years of age (74%), and least often in newborn infants (32%). Most trials researched medicines in the field of cancer (29%). Trials investigated one-third of the medicines that were indicated as a priority for pharmacokinetic research by the European Medicines Agency.ConclusionsThere is a need for increased knowledge of the pharmacokinetic profiles of children's medicines. The amount of currently ongoing pharmacokinetic research does not seem to address adequately the lack of knowledge in this area. This study sets a baseline for monitoring of future progress on the amount of ongoing pharmacokinetic research in children.
| S-EPMC3191584 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBlinding is an established approach in clinical trials which aims to minimise the risk of performance and detection bias. There is little empirical evidence to guide UK clinical trials units (CTUs) about the practice of blinding statisticians. Guidelines recommend that statisticians remain blinded to allocation prior to the final analysis. As these guidelines are not based on empirical evidence, this study undertook a qualitative investigation relating to when and how statisticians should be blinded in clinical trials.MethodsData were collected through online focus groups with various stakeholders who work in the delivery and oversight of clinical trials. Recordings of the focus groups were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts.ResultsThirty-seven participants from 19 CTUs participated in one of six focus groups. Four main themes were identified, namely statistical models of work, factors affecting the decision to blind statisticians, benefits of blinding/not blinding statisticians and practicalities. Factors influencing the decision to blind the statistician included available resources, study design and types of intervention and outcomes and analysis. Although blinding of the statistician is perceived as a desirable mitigation against bias, there was uncertainty about the extent to which an unblinded statistician might impart bias. Instead, in most cases, the insight that the statistician offers was deemed more important to delivery of a trial than the risk of bias they may introduce if unblinded. Blinding of statisticians was only considered achievable with the appropriate resource and staffing, which were not always available. In many cases, a standard approach to blinding was therefore considered unrealistic and impractical; hence the need for a proportionate risk assessment approach identifying possible mitigations.ConclusionsThere was wide variation in practice between UK CTUs regarding the blinding of trial statisticians. A risk assessment approach would enable CTUs to identify risks associated with unblinded statisticians conducting the final analysis and alternative mitigation strategies. The findings of this study will be used to design guidance and a tool to support this risk assessment process.
| S-EPMC9235168 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although ginseng has long been broadly used in clinical settings around the world, few clinical trials on ginseng have been conducted. The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the characteristics of ginseng clinical trials registered in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) as of December 2017 regarding their frequency, design, type of ginseng, dosage, duration, condition, funding sources, and publication status. A total of 134 ginseng clinical studies were registered from 2002 to 2017, of which 60.4% were completed and 23.1% are actively recruiting participants. A large number of trials were associated with aspects of high-quality trial design. Overall, 94% of the trials employed randomized allocation to study arms, 78.4% were double-blind studies using placebo as one of the control groups, and 71% were published as completed trials. Trials whose sample size was restricted to fewer than 100 participants accounted for 74.7% of the total. Of the primary funding sources for ginseng studies, 67.2% were nonindustry organizations. The ginseng clinical trials were heterogeneous with respect to ginseng species and variety, indications, dose, duration, and participant characteristics. Clearly, stricter and methodologically suitable studies are needed to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of ginseng.
| S-EPMC5818925 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The assessment of blinding in RCTs is rarely performed. Currently most studies that do report data on evaluation of blinding merely report percentages of correct guessing, not taking into account correct guessing by chance. Blinding assessment using the blinding index (BI) has never been performed in a systematic review on studies of major psychiatric disorders. This study is a systematic review of psychiatric randomized control trials using the BI as a chance-corrected measurement of blinding, a tool to analyze and understand the patterns of blinding across studies of major psychiatric disorders with available data. Of 2467 psychiatric RCTs from 2000 to 2010, 66 reported on blinding and 40 studies were found to have enough information on evaluation of blinding to be analyzed using the BI. The experimental treatment groups had an average BI value of 0.14 and the control groups had an average BI value of 0.00. The most common BI scenario was random-random, indicating ideal blinding. A positive correlation between effect size and more correct guesses was also found. Overall, based on BI values and the most common blinding scenario, the published articles on major psychiatric disorders from 2000 to 2010, which reported on blinding assessment for patients, were effectively blinded.
| S-EPMC4183143 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify the availability of results for trials registered on the European Union Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) compared with other dissemination routes to understand its value as a results repository.DesignCross sectional audit study.SettingEUCTR protocols and results sections, data extracted 1-3 December 2020.PopulationRandom sample of 500 trials registered on EUCTR with a completion date of more than two years from the beginning of searches (ie, 1 December 2018).Main outcome measuresProportion of trials with results across the examined dissemination routes (EUCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN registry, and journal publications), and for each dissemination route individually. Prespecified secondary outcomes were number and proportion of unique results, and the timing of results, for each dissemination route.ResultsIn the sample of 500 trials, availability of results on EUCTR (53.2%, 95% confidence interval 48.8% to 57.6%) was similar to the peer reviewed literature (58.6%, 54.3% to 62.9%) and exceeded the proportion of results available on other registries with matched records. Among the 383 trials with any results, 55 (14.4%, 10.9% to 17.9%) were only available on EUCTR. Also, after the launch of the EUCTR results database, median time to results was fastest on EUCTR (1142 days, 95% confidence interval 812 to 1492), comparable with journal publications (1226 days, 1074 to 1551), and exceeding ClinicalTrials.gov (3321 days, 1653 to undefined). For 117 trials (23.4%, 19.7% to 27.1%), however, results were published elsewhere but not submitted to the EUCTR registry, and no results were located in any dissemination route for 117 trials (23.4%, 19.7% to 27.1).ConclusionsEUCTR should be considered in results searches for systematic reviews and can help researchers and the public to access the results of clinical trials, unavailable elsewhere, in a timely way. Reporting requirements, such as the EU's, can help in avoiding research waste by ensuring results are reported. The registry's true value, however, is unrealised because of inadequate compliance with EU guidelines, and problems with data quality that complicate the routine use of the registry. As the EU transitions to a new registry, continuing to emphasise the importance of EUCTR and the provision of timely and complete data is critical. For the future, EUCTR will still hold important information from the past two decades of clinical research in Europe. With increased efforts from sponsors and regulators, the registry can continue to grow as a source of results of clinical trials, many of which might be unavailable from other dissemination routes.
| S-EPMC10806997 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Adaptive designs have the potential to improve efficiency in the evaluation of new medical treatments in comparison to traditional fixed sample size designs. However, they are still not widely used in practice in clinical research. Little research has been conducted to investigate what adaptive designs are being undertaken. This review highlights the current state of registered adaptive designs and their characteristics. The review looked at phase II, II/III and III trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 29 February 2000 to 1 June 2014, supplemented with trials from the National Institute for Health Research register and known adaptive trials. A range of adaptive design search terms were applied to the trials extracted from each database. Characteristics of the adaptive designs were then recorded including funder, therapeutic area and type of adaptation. The results in the paper suggest that the use of adaptive designs has increased. They seem to be most often used in phase II trials and in oncology. In phase III trials, the most popular form of adaptation is the group sequential design. The review failed to capture all trials with adaptive designs, which suggests that the reporting of adaptive designs, such as in clinical trials registers, needs much improving. We recommend that clinical trial registers should contain sections dedicated to the type and scope of the adaptation and that the term 'adaptive design' should be included in the trial title or at least in the brief summary or design sections.
| S-EPMC4799596 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In some therapeutic areas, treatment evaluation is frequently complicated by a possible placebo effect (i.e., the psychobiological effect of a patient's knowledge or belief of being treated). When a substantial placebo effect is likely to exist, it is important to distinguish the treatment and placebo effects in quantifying the clinical benefit of a new treatment. These causal effects can be formally defined in a joint causal model that includes treatment (e.g., new versus placebo) and treatmentality (i.e., a patient's belief or mentality about which treatment she or he has received) as separate exposures. Information about the treatmentality exposure can be obtained from blinding assessments, which are increasingly common in clinical trials where blinding success is in question. Assuming that treatmentality has a lagged effect and is measured at multiple time points, this article is concerned with joint evaluation of treatment and placebo effects in clinical trials with longitudinal follow-up, possibly with monotone missing data. We describe and discuss several methods adapted from the longitudinal causal inference literature, apply them to a weight loss study, and compare them in simulation experiments that mimic the weight loss study.
| S-EPMC4838817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo study the impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects, and their variation between trials; differentiating between blinding of patients, healthcare providers, and observers; detection bias and performance bias; and types of outcome (the MetaBLIND study).DesignMeta-epidemiological study.Data sourceCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2013-14).Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesMeta-analyses with both blinded and non-blinded trials on any topic.Review methodsBlinding status was retrieved from trial publications and authors, and results retrieved automatically from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Bayesian hierarchical models estimated the average ratio of odds ratios (ROR), and estimated the increases in heterogeneity between trials, for non-blinded trials (or of unclear status) versus blinded trials. Secondary analyses adjusted for adequacy of concealment of allocation, attrition, and trial size, and explored the association between outcome subjectivity (high, moderate, low) and average bias. An ROR lower than 1 indicated exaggerated effect estimates in trials without blinding.ResultsThe study included 142 meta-analyses (1153 trials). The ROR for lack of blinding of patients was 0.91 (95% credible interval 0.61 to 1.34) in 18 meta-analyses with patient reported outcomes, and 0.98 (0.69 to 1.39) in 14 meta-analyses with outcomes reported by blinded observers. The ROR for lack of blinding of healthcare providers was 1.01 (0.84 to 1.19) in 29 meta-analyses with healthcare provider decision outcomes (eg, readmissions), and 0.97 (0.64 to 1.45) in 13 meta-analyses with outcomes reported by blinded patients or observers. The ROR for lack of blinding of observers was 1.01 (0.86 to 1.18) in 46 meta-analyses with subjective observer reported outcomes, with no clear impact of degree of subjectivity. Information was insufficient to determine whether lack of blinding was associated with increased heterogeneity between trials. The ROR for trials not reported as double blind versus those that were double blind was 1.02 (0.90 to 1.13) in 74 meta-analyses.ConclusionNo evidence was found for an average difference in estimated treatment effect between trials with and without blinded patients, healthcare providers, or outcome assessors. These results could reflect that blinding is less important than often believed or meta-epidemiological study limitations, such as residual confounding or imprecision. At this stage, replication of this study is suggested and blinding should remain a methodological safeguard in trials.
| S-EPMC7190062 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The design of analgesic clinical trials invariably involves a comparison between placebo and active study medication. An assumption is made that treatment effects can be approximated by subtracting the response to placebo from that attained with the use of active study medication. However, the psychoactivity of cannabinoids may unmask their presence and lead to an expectation and/or conditioning of pain relief. For example, study participants biased toward the belief that cannabis is beneficial for their condition might be more inclined to report positive effects if they were to accurately identify the active treatment because of its psychoactivity. This may lead to incorrect assumptions regarding the efficacy of a cannabinoid. Methodologies designed to counteract unmasking need to be implemented in the design phase of a study. During the clinical trial, it is also important to query participants as to which treatment they believe they have received. Blinding can be considered to be preserved when the accuracy of treatment guesses is not considerably different than random guessing, which is estimated to be correct 50% of the time. After a study has been completed, the use of statistical methodologies such as regression and mediation analysis are worthy of consideration to see whether psychoactive effects biased the results.
| S-EPMC5549444 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The disease was first reported in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, but now more than 200 countries have been affected and the coronavirus pandemic is still ongoing. The severity of COVID-19 symptoms can range from mild to severe. FDA approved remdesivir as a treatment of COVID-19 so far. Various clinical trials are underway to find an effective method to treat patients with COVID-19. This review aimed at summarizing 219 registered clinical trials in the ClinicalTrials.gov database with possible mechanisms, and novel findings of them, and other recent publications related to COVID-19. According to our analyses, various treatment approaches and drugs are being investigated to find an effective drug to cure COVID-19 and among all strategies, three important mechanisms are suggested to be important against COVID-19 including antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory properties. Our review can help future studies get on the way to finding an effective drug for COVID-19 treatment by providing ideas for similar researches.
| S-EPMC7753306 | biostudies-literature