Dataset Information

Examination of overall treatment effect and the proportion attributable to contextual effect in osteoarthritis: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine the overall treatment effect and the proportion attributable to contextual effect (PCE) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of diverse treatments for osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, Central, Science Citation Index, AMED and CINAHL through October 2014, supplemented with manual search of reference lists, published meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Included were RCTs in OA comparing placebo with representative complementary, pharmacological, non-pharmacological and surgical treatments. The primary outcome was pain. Secondary outcomes were function and stiffness. The effect size (ES) of overall treatment effect and the PCE were pooled using random-effects model. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were conducted to examine determinants of the PCE.

Results

In total, 215 trials (41?392 participants) were included. The overall treatment effect for pain ranged from the smallest with lavage (ES=0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.68) to the largest with topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ES=1.37, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.55). On average, 75% (PCE=0.75, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.79) of pain reduction was attributable to contextual effect. It varied by treatment from 47% (PCE=0.47, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.70) for intra-articular corticosteroid to 91% (PCE=0.91, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.37) for joint lavage. Similar results were observed for function and stiffness. Treatment delivered by needle/injection and other means than oral medication, longer duration of treatment, large sample size (?100 per arm) and public funding source were associated with increased PCE for pain reduction.

Conclusions

The majority (75%) of the overall treatment effect in OA RCTs is attributable to contextual effects rather than the specific effect of treatments. Reporting overall treatment effect and PCE, in addition to traditional ES, permits a more balanced, clinically meaningful interpretation of RCT results. This would help dispel the frequent discordance between conclusions from RCT evidence and clinical experience-the 'efficacy paradox'.

SUBMITTER: Zou K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5099197 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecent phase 3 trials have shown an overall survival benefit in metastatic melanoma. We aimed to assess whether progression-free survival (PFS) could be regarded as a reliable surrogate for overall survival through a meta-analysis of randomised trials.MethodsWe systematically reviewed randomised trials comparing treatment regimens in metastatic melanoma that included dacarbazine as the control arm, and which reported both PFS and overall survival with a standard hazard ratio (HR). We correlated HRs for overall survival and PFS, weighted by sample size or by precision of the HR estimate, assuming fixed and random effects. We did sensitivity analyses according to presence of crossover, trial size, and dacarbazine dose.FindingsAfter screening 1649 reports and meeting abstracts published before Sept 8, 2013, we identified 12 eligible randomised trials that enrolled 4416 patients with metastatic melanoma. Irrespective of weighting strategy, we noted a strong correlation between the treatment effects for PFS and overall survival, which seemed independent of treatment type. Pearson correlation coefficients were 0·71 (95% CI 0·29-0·90) with a random-effects assumption, 0·85 (0·59-0·95) with a fixed-effects assumption, and 0·89 (0·68-0·97) with sample-size weighting. For nine trials without crossover, the correlation coefficient was 0·96 (0·81-0·99), which decreased to 0·93 (0·74-0·98) when two additional trials with less than 50% crossover were included. Inclusion of mature follow-up data after at least 50% crossover (in vemurafenib and dabrafenib phase 3 trials) weakened the PFS to overall survival correlation (0·55, 0·03-0·84). Inclusion of trials with no or little crossover with the random-effects assumption yielded a conservative statement of the PFS to overall survival correlation of 0·85 (0·51-0·96).InterpretationPFS can be regarded as a robust surrogate for overall survival in dacarbazine-controlled randomised trials of metastatic melanoma; we postulate that this association will hold as treatment standards evolve and are adopted as the control arm in future trials.FundingNone.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.

Project description:BackgroundAfrica bears 24% of the global burden of disease but has only 3% of the world's health workers. Substantial variation in health worker performance adds to the negative impact of this significant shortfall. We therefore sought to identify interventions implemented in sub-Saharan African aiming to improve health worker performance and the contextual factors likely to influence local effectiveness.Methods and findingsA systematic search for randomised controlled trials of interventions to improve health worker performance undertaken in sub-Saharan Africa identified 41 eligible trials. Data were extracted to define the interventions' components, calculate the absolute improvement in performance achieved, and document the likelihood of bias. Within-study variability in effect was extracted where reported. Statements about contextual factors likely to have modified effect were subjected to thematic analysis. Interventions to improve health worker performance can be very effective. Two of the three trials assessing mortality impact showed significant reductions in death rates (age<5 case fatality 5% versus 10%, p<0.01; maternal in-hospital mortality 6.8/1000 versus 10.3/1000; p<0.05). Eight of twelve trials focusing on prescribing had a statistically significant positive effect, achieving an absolute improvement varying from 9% to 48%. However, reported range of improvement between centres within trials varied substantially, in many cases exceeding the mean effect. Nine contextual themes were identified as modifiers of intervention effect across studies; most frequently cited were supply-line failures, inadequate supervision or management, and failure to follow-up training interventions with ongoing support, in addition to staff turnover.ConclusionsInterventions to improve performance of existing staff and service quality have the potential to improve patient care in underserved settings. But in order to implement interventions effectively, policy makers need to understand and address the contextual factors which can contribute to differences in local effect. Researchers therefore must recognise the importance of reporting how context may modify effect size.