Dataset Information

Effect sizes in ongoing randomized controlled critical care trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

An important limitation of many critical care trial designs is that they hypothesize large, and potentially implausible, reductions in mortality. Interpretation of trial results could be improved by systematic assessment of the plausibility of trial hypotheses; however, such assessment has not been attempted in the field of critical care medicine. The purpose of this study was to determine clinicians' views about prior probabilities and plausible effect sizes for ongoing critical care trials where the primary endpoint is landmark mortality.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of clinical trial registries in September 2015 to identify ongoing critical care medicine trials where landmark mortality was the primary outcome, followed by a clinician survey to obtain opinions about ten large trials. Clinicians were asked to estimate the probability that each trial would demonstrate a mortality effect equal to or larger than that used in its sample size calculations.

Results

Estimates provided by individual clinicians varied from 0% to 100% for most trials, with a median estimate of 15% (IQR 10-20%). The median largest absolute mortality reduction considered plausible was 4.5% (IQR 3.5-5%), compared with a median absolute mortality reduction used in sample size calculations of 5% (IQR 3.6-10%) (P?=?0.27).

Conclusions

For some of the largest ongoing critical care trials, many clinicians regard prior probabilities as low and consider that plausible effects on absolute mortality are less than 5%. Further work is needed to determine whether pooled estimates obtained by surveying clinicians are replicable and accurate or whether other methods of estimating prior probability are preferred.

SUBMITTER: Ridgeon EE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5460326 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect sizes in ongoing randomized controlled critical care trials.

Ridgeon Elliott E EE Bellomo Rinaldo R Aberegg Scott K SK Sweeney Rob Mac RM Varughese Rachel S RS Landoni Giovanni G Young Paul J PJ

Critical care (London, England) 20170605 1

<h4>Background</h4>An important limitation of many critical care trial designs is that they hypothesize large, and potentially implausible, reductions in mortality. Interpretation of trial results could be improved by systematic assessment of the plausibility of trial hypotheses; however, such assessment has not been attempted in the field of critical care medicine. The purpose of this study was to determine clinicians' views about prior probabilities and plausible effect sizes for ongoing criti ...[more]

PMID: 28583149

Similar Datasets

Project description:The registration of clinical trials has been promoted to prevent publication bias and increase research transparency. Despite general agreement about the minimum amount of information needed for trial registration, we lack clear guidance on descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions in trial registries. We aimed to evaluate the quality of registry descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions assessed in ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patient education.On 6 May 2009, we searched for all ongoing RCTs registered in the 10 trial registries accessible through the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We included trials evaluating an educational intervention (that is, designed to teach or train patients about their own health) and dedicated to participants, their family members or home caregivers. We used a standardized data extraction form to collect data related to the description of the experimental intervention, the centers, and the caregivers.We selected 268 of 642 potentially eligible studies and appraised a random sample of 150 records. All selected trials were registered in 4 registers, mainly ClinicalTrials.gov (61%). The median [interquartile range] target sample size was 205 [100 to 400] patients. The comparator was mainly usual care (47%) or active treatment (47%). A minority of records (17%, 95% CI 11 to 23%) reported an overall adequate description of the intervention (that is, description that reported the content, mode of delivery, number, frequency, duration of sessions and overall duration of the intervention). Further, for most reports (59%), important information about the content of the intervention was missing. The description of the mode of delivery of the intervention was reported for 52% of studies, the number of sessions for 74%, the frequency of sessions for 58%, the duration of each session for 45% and the overall duration for 63%. Information about the caregivers was missing for 70% of trials. Most trials (73%) took place in the United States or United Kingdom, 64% involved only one centre, and participating centers were mainly tertiary-care, academic or university hospitals (51%).Educational interventions assessed in ongoing RCTs of educational interventions are poorly described in trial registries. The lack of adequate description raises doubts about the ability of trial registration to help patients and researchers know about the treatment evaluated in trials of education.

Project description:IntroductionEvidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is required to guide treatment of critically ill children, but the number of RCTs available is limited and the publications are often difficult to find. The objectives of this review were to systematically identify RCTs in pediatric critical care and describe their methods and reporting.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and CENTRAL (from inception to April 16, 2013) and reference lists of included RCTs and relevant systematic reviews. We included published RCTs administering any intervention to children in a pediatric ICU. We excluded trials conducted in neonatal ICUs, those enrolling exclusively preterm infants, and individual patient crossover trials. Pairs of reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias, and abstracted data. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.ResultsWe included 248 RCTs: 45 (18%) were multicentered and 14 (6%) were multinational. Trials most frequently enrolled both medical and surgical patients (43%) but postoperative cardiac surgery was the single largest population studied (19%). The most frequently evaluated types of intervention were medications (63%), devices (11%) and nutrition (8%). Laboratory or physiological measurements were the most frequent type of primary outcomes (18%). Half of these trials (50%) reported blinding. Of the 107 (43%) trials that reported an a priori sample size, 34 (32%) were stopped early. The median number of children randomized per trial was 49 and ranged from 6 to 4,947. The frequency of RCT publications increased at a mean rate of 0.7 RCTs per year (P<0.001) from 1 to 20 trials per year.ConclusionsThis scoping review identified the available RCTs in pediatric critical care and made them accessible to clinicians and researchers (http://epicc.mcmaster.ca). Most focused on medications and intermediate or surrogate outcomes, were single-centered and were conducted in North America and Western Europe. The results of this review underscore the need for trials with rigorous methodology, appropriate outcome measures, and improved quality of reporting to ensure that high quality evidence exists to support clinical decision-making in this vulnerable population.

Project description:Trauma resuscitation practices have continued to improve with new advances targeting prehospital interventions. The critical care burden associated with severely injured patients at risk of hemorrhage has been poorly characterized. We aim to describe the individual and additive effects of multiorgan failure (MOF) and nosocomial infection (NI) on delayed mortality and resource utilization. A secondary analysis of harmonized data from two large prehospital randomized controlled trials (Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) Trial and Study of Tranexamic Acid during Air and Ground Medical Prehospital Transport (STAAMP) Trial) was conducted. Only those patients who survived beyond the first 24 hours post-injury and spent at least one day in the ICU were included. Patients were stratified by development of MOF only, NI only, both, or neither and diagnosis of early (≤ 3 days) versus late MOF (> 3 days). Risk factors of NI and MOF, time course of these ICU complications, associated mortality, and hospital resource utilization were evaluated. Of the 869 patients who were enrolled in PAMPer and STAAMP and who met study criteria, 27.4% developed MOF only (n = 238), 10.9% developed NI only (n = 95), and 15.3% were diagnosed with both MOF and NI (n = 133). Patients developing NI and/or MOF compared to those who had an uncomplicated ICU course had greater injury severity, lower GCS, and greater shock indexes. Early MOF occurred in isolation, while late MOF more often followed NI. MOF was associated with 65% higher independent risk of 30-day mortality when adjusting for cofounders (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.04-2.6; p = 0.03), however NI did not significantly affect odds of mortality. NI was individually associated with longer mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, hospital stay, and rehabilitation requirements, and the addition of MOF further increased the burden of inpatient and post-discharge care. MOF and NI remain common complications for those who survive traumatic injury. MOF is a robust independent predictor of mortality following injury in this cohort, and NI is associated with higher resource utilization. Timing of these ICU complications may reveal differences in pathophysiology and offer targets for continued advancements in treatment.

Project description:IntroductionMortality is the most widely accepted outcome measure in randomized controlled trials of therapies for critically ill adults, but most of these trials fail to show a statistically significant mortality benefit. The reasons for this are unknown.MethodsWe searched five high impact journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, JAMA, The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine) for randomized controlled trials comparing mortality of therapies for critically ill adults over a ten year period. We abstracted data on the statistical design and results of these trials to compare the predicted delta (delta; the effect size of the therapy compared to control expressed as an absolute mortality reduction) to the observed delta to determine if there is a systematic overestimation of predicted delta that might explain the high prevalence of negative results in these trials.ResultsWe found 38 trials meeting our inclusion criteria. Only 5/38 (13.2%) of the trials provided justification for the predicted delta. The mean predicted delta among the 38 trials was 10.1% and the mean observed delta was 1.4% (P < 0.0001), resulting in a delta-gap of 8.7%. In only 2/38 (5.3%) of the trials did the observed delta exceed the predicted delta and only 7/38 (18.4%) of the trials demonstrated statistically significant results in the hypothesized direction; these trials had smaller delta-gaps than the remainder of the trials (delta-gap 0.9% versus 10.5%; P < 0.0001). For trials showing non-significant trends toward benefit greater than 3%, large increases in sample size (380% - 1100%) would be required if repeat trials use the observed delta from the index trial as the predicted delta for a follow-up study.ConclusionsInvestigators of therapies for critical illness systematically overestimate treatment effect size (delta) during the design of randomized controlled trials. This bias, which we refer to as "delta inflation", is a potential reason that these trials have a high rate of negative results."Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Dataset Information

Effect sizes in ongoing randomized controlled critical care trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Effect sizes in ongoing randomized controlled critical care trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets