Treatment preference and recruitment to pediatric RCTs: A systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Recruitment to pediatric randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be a challenge, with ethical issues surrounding assent and consent. Pediatric RCTs frequently recruit from a smaller pool of patients making adequate recruitment difficult. One factor which influences recruitment and retention in pediatric trials is patient and parent preferences for treatment.Purpose
To systematically review pediatric RCTs reporting treatment preference.Methods
Database searches included: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and COCHRANE.Qualitative or quantitative papers were eligible if they reported: pediatric population, (0-17 years) recruited to an RCT and reported treatment preference for all or some of the participants/parents in any clinical area. Data extraction included: Number of eligible participants consenting to randomisation arms, number of eligible patients not randomised because of treatment preference, and any further information reported on preferences (e.g., if parent preference was different from child).Results
Fifty-two studies were included. The number of eligible families declining participation in an RCT because of preference for treatment varied widely (between 2 and 70%) in feasibility, conventional and preference trial designs. Some families consented to trial involvement despite having preferences for a specific treatment. Data relating to 'participant flow and recruitment' was not always reported consistently, therefore numbers who were lost to follow-up or withdrew due to preference could not be extracted.Conclusions
Families often have treatment preferences which may affect trial recruitment. Whilst children appear to hold treatment preferences, this is rarely reported. Further investigation is needed to understand the reasons for preference and the impact preference has on RCT recruitment, retention and outcome.
SUBMITTER: Beasant L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6430075 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:To determine whether there are differences in age and sex distribution and presence of comorbidities between participants included in randomized controlled trials of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and nationwide cohort of persons with Alzheimer's disease.PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases were searched for original articles from their inception to January 4, 2015. Double-blind randomized controlled trials with donepezil, rivastigmine or galantamine compared to placebo in participants with Alzheimer's disease were included. Data from a nationwide cohort of persons with clinically verified diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease was defined as a reference population.128 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, 31 of them fulfilled criteria. Mean age of participants in randomized controlled trials (n = 15,032) was 5.8 years lower (95% CI 5.7 to 5.9, P < 0.001), compared to the mean age of 79.7 years in the reference population with Alzheimer's disease (n = 28,093). Most of the articles did not report age distribution of participants. The proportion of women was 63.2% (9,475/14,991) in randomized controlled trials and 67.8% (19,043/28,093) (P < 0.001) in the reference population. Information on comorbidities and use of concomitant drugs were lacking or poorly reported in most articles.There is a discrepancy between participants in randomized controlled trials of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and real-life population with Alzheimer's disease. Participants in randomized controlled trials were significantly younger. Further, more detailed reporting of age distribution, comorbidities and concomitant drugs would be important information for clinicians when evaluating conclusions from randomized controlled trials to real-life practice. The existing recommendations of inclusion of older people should be followed to ensure safe pharmacotherapy for older people.
| S-EPMC4416896 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune, nonscarring hair loss disorder with slightly greater prevalence in children than adults. Various treatment modalities exist; however, their evidence in pediatric AA patients is lacking.ObjectiveTo evaluate the evidence of current treatment modalities for pediatric AA.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review on the PubMed database in October 2019 for all published articles involving patients <18 years old. Articles discussing AA treatment in pediatric patients were included, as were articles discussing both pediatric and adult patients, if data on individual pediatric patients were available.ResultsInclusion criteria were met by 122 total reports discussing 1032 patients. Reports consisted of 2 randomized controlled trials, 4 prospective comparative cohorts, 83 case series, 2 case-control studies, and 31 case reports. Included articles assessed the use of aloe, apremilast, anthralin, anti-interferon gamma antibodies, botulinum toxin, corticosteroids, contact immunotherapies, cryotherapy, hydroxychloroquine, hypnotherapy, imiquimod, Janus kinase inhibitors, laser and light therapy, methotrexate, minoxidil, phototherapy, psychotherapy, prostaglandin analogs, sulfasalazine, topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical nitrogen mustard, and ustekinumab.LimitationsEnglish-only articles with full texts were used. Manuscripts with adult and pediatric data were only incorporated if individual-level data for pediatric patients were provided. No meta-analysis was performed.ConclusionTopical corticosteroids are the preferred first-line treatment for pediatric AA, as they hold the highest level of evidence, followed by contact immunotherapy. More clinical trials and comparative studies are needed to further guide management of pediatric AA and to promote the potential use of pre-existing, low-cost, and novel therapies, including Janus kinase inhibitors.
| S-EPMC8556406 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTreatment preference research can support shared and informed decision making for currently available atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments, and simultaneously guide research and development for future therapies. In this systematic literature review, we aimed to provide an overview of preferences for AD treatments.MethodsThis systematic literature review was conducted in the Medline and Embase (via Ovid) databases, supplemented by manual searching. Quantitative research published from 2010 to September 2023 that investigated preferences for AD treatments were included. Quality assessment was conducted by using the purpose, respondents, explanation, findings, significance checklist, and a checklist developed by the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research.ResultsIn total, 207 references were screened after removing duplicates and 15 studies were included. Most studies were conducted in the US, followed by European countries. On average, people directly or indirectly affected by AD rate efficacy and treatment-related risk as the most important criteria when choosing an AD therapy. Participants are willing to increase risks in order to have a higher chance of achieving a certain benefit, e.g. reduction in itch or clearer skin. Participants have preferences for different modes of administration. On average, 68% (all full-text studies) and 87% (only discrete choice experiments [DCEs]) of quality criteria per reference were rated as fulfilled. DCEs received generally higher quality assessment scores than non-DCEs.ConclusionsThis review revealed that AD treatment preference research is limited. Diverse study designs hampered comparison and synthesis of the results. We recommend conducting more DCEs in this field to increase the likelihood of AD patients receiving the therapy that best fits their individual needs and preferences.Clinical trials registrationThis protocol was published in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023468757).
| S-EPMC11343911 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the realm of acute respiratory infections, coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), poses a global public health challenge. The application of corticosteroids (CSs) in COVID-19 remains a contentious topic among researchers. Accordingly, our team performed a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to meticulously evaluate the safety and efficacy of CSs in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. To explore efficacy of CSs in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, we meticulously screened RCTs across key databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, as well as China's CNKI and Wanfang Data. We focused on assessing the 28 days mortality rates. We evaluated the data heterogeneity using the Chi-square test and I2 values, setting significance at 0.1 and 50%. Data from 21 RCTs involving 5721 participants were analyzed. The analysis did not demonstrate a significant association between CSs intervention and the 28 days mortality risk in hospitalized COVID-19 patients (relative risk [RR] = 0.93; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.84-1.03; P = 0.15). However, subgroup analysis revealed a significant reduction in 28 days mortality among patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 (RR at 0.85; 95% CI: 0.76-0.95; P = 0.004). Specifically, short-term CS administration (≤ 3 days) was associated with a substantial improvement in clinical outcomes (RR = 0.24; 95% CI: 0.09-0.63; P = 0.004), as was longer-term use (≥ 8 days) (RR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.77-0.99; P = 0.04). Additionally, in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, the administration of dexamethasone increased the number of 28 days ventilator-free days (Mean Difference = 1.92; 95% CI: 0.44-3.40; P = 0.01). Methylprednisolone also demonstrated significant benefits in improving clinical outcomes (RR = 0.24; 95% CI: 0.09-0.63; P = 0.004). Our meta-analysis demonstrated that although there is no significant difference in 28 days mortality rates among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the use of CSs may be beneficial in improving clinical outcomes in moderate or severe COVID-19 patients. There was no significant increase in the occurrence of adverse events associated with the use of CSs. Our meta-analysis provides evidence that while CSs may not be suitable for all COVID-19 patients, they could be effective and safe in severely ill COVID-19 patients. Consequently, it is recommended to administer CSs for personalized treatments in COVID-19 cases to improve the clinical outcomes while minimizing adverse events.
| S-EPMC11246314 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere are a variety of treatment options for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, and the optimal specific treatment still remains to be determined. Therefore, this Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the optimal treatment options for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.MethodsPubmed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for articles published until 15 June 2022. The outcome measures for this meta-analysis were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) of Grade 3-4. The Cochrane assessment tool for risk of bias was used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included original studies. The Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022347273).ResultsOur systematic review included 11 RCTs involving 1871 patients and 11 treatments other than chemotherapy. The results of meta-analysis showed that the overall survival (OS) was the highest in adavosertib + gemcitabine compared with conventional chemotherapy, (HR=0.56,95%CI:0.35-0.91), followed by sorafenib + topotecan (HR=0.65, 95%CI:0.45-0.93). In addition, Adavosertib + Gemcitabine regimen had the highest PFS (HR=0.55,95%CI:0.34-0.88), followed by Bevacizumab + Gemcitabine regimen (HR=0.48,95%CI:0.38-0.60) and the immunotherapy of nivolumab was the safest (HR=0.164,95%CI:0.312-0.871) with least adverse events of Grades 3-4.ConclusionsThe results of this study indicated that Adavosertib (WEE1 kinase-inhibitor) + gemcitabine regimen and Bevacizumab + Gemcitabine regimen would be significantly beneficial to patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, and could be preferred for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. The immunotherapeutic agent, Nivolumab, is of considerable safety, with a low risk for grade-III or IV adverse events. Its safety is comparable to Adavosertib + gemcitabine regimen. Pazopanib + Paclitaxel (weekly regimen), Sorafenib + Topotecan/Nivolumab could be selected if there are contraindications of the above strategies.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022347273.
| S-EPMC10126232 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPediatric glioblastoma (GBM) is an aggressive central nervous system tumor in children that has dismal prognosis. Standard of care is surgery with subsequent irradiation and temozolomide. We aimed to outline currently available data on novel pharmacological treatments for pediatric GBM.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Embase, including reports published in English from 2010 to 2021. We included randomized trials, cohort studies and case series. Phase I trials were not analyzed. We followed PRISMA guidelines, assessed the quality of the eligible reports using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the RoB-2 tool and registered the protocol on PROSPERO.ResultsWe included 6 out of 1122 screened reports. All six selected reports were prospective, multicenter phase II trials (five single-arm and one randomized controlled trial). None of the investigated novel treatment modalities showed any benefit regarding overall or progression free survival.ConclusionsTo date, the role of pharmacological approaches regarding pediatric GBM remains unclear, since no novel treatment approach could provide a significant impact on overall or progression free survival. Further research should aim to combine different treatment strategies in large international multicenter trials with central comprehensive diagnostics regarding subgrouping. These novel treatment approaches should include targeted and immunotherapeutic treatments, potentially leading to a more successful outcome.
| S-EPMC9179254 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The effectiveness and safety of acupuncture in the treatment of obesity have not been assessed. This poses a challenge for clinicians who choose to use acupuncture in the treatment of obesity, as they are unable to prioritize this approach based on outcome variables. In May 2024, a literature search of five databases was conducted. Only randomized controlled trials evaluating body weight (BW), body mass index, waist circumference (WC), and adverse events in patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 25 or higher for various acupuncture modalities were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, version 2. Pairwise meta-analysis (PMA) and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) were performed using a random effects model for quantitative synthesis. Fourteen studies (n = 868) were included. The included studies evaluated the following acupuncture modalities: electroacupuncture (EA) (N = 6), laser acupuncture (LA) (N = 2), auricular acupuncture (AA) (N = 5), and manual acupuncture (MA) (N = 3). The PMA found that adding EA to usual care (UC), compared to UC alone, reduced BW (MD = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.12 to 3.80, I2 = 58%, REM, N = 3, n = 157). The NMA of BW showed the following effect sizes for UC alone versus each acupuncture modality combined with UC: LA (MD = 2.09, 95% CI = 0.04 to 3.86), EA (MD = 2.04, 95% CI = 0.88 to 3.50), AA (MD = 1.69, 95% CI = -0.11 to 3.58), and MA (MD = 1.02, 95% CI = -0.82 to 2.94). The probability of each modality being the optimal treatment was evaluated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. EA was the most efficacious for BW and BMI, while LA was the most efficacious for WC. EA and LA can effectively complement clinical obesity management. The number of included studies was limited, and publication bias may have occurred, necessitating a cautious interpretation of the results. Furthermore, most studies lasted between six and 12 weeks. Future clinical studies of acupuncture for obesity should include longer follow-up periods. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=387788, identifier CRD42023387788.
| S-EPMC11372581 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To determine the quality of randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) reports in diabetes research in Iran.Systematized review.We included RCTs conducted on diabetes mellitus in Iran. Animal studies, educational interventions, and non-randomized trials were excluded. We excluded duplicated publications reporting the same groups of participants and intervention. Two independent reviewers identify all eligible articles specifically designed data extraction form. We searched through international databases; Scopus, ProQuest, EBSCO, Science Direct, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed; and national databases (In Persian language) such as Magiran, Scientific Information Database (SID) and IranMedex from January 1995 to January of 2013 Two investigators assessed the quality of reporting by CONSORT 2010 (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) checklist statemen.t,. Discrepancies were resolved by third reviewer consulting.One hundred and eight five (185) studies were included and appraised. Half of them (55.7 %) were published in Iranian journals. Most (89.7 %) were parallel RCTs, and being performed on type2 diabetic patients (77.8 %). Less than half of the CONSORT items (43.2 %) were reported in studies, totally. The reporting of randomization and blinding were poor. A few studies 15.1 % mentioned the method of random sequence generation and strategy of allocation concealment. And only 34.8 % of trials report how blinding was applied.The findings of this study show that the quality of RCTs conducted in Iran in diabetes research seems suboptimal and the reporting is also incomplete however an increasing trend of improvement can be seen over time. Therefore, it is suggested Iranian researchers pay much more attention to design and methodological quality in conducting and reporting of diabetes RCTs.
| S-EPMC5015251 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Heterogeneity has been noted in the selection and reporting of disease-specific, pediatric outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The consequence is invalid results or difficulty comparing results across trials. The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess primary outcome and outcome measure selection and reporting, in pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) treatment trials. As secondary objectives, we compared trial disease definition to established concensus guidelines, and the efficacy of current EoE treatments. METHODS:We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and CINAHL since 2001. We also searched clinical trial registries (portal.nihr.ac.uk; clinicaltrials.gov; isrctn.com; and anzctr.org.au) and references of included studies. We included RCTs of EoE treatment in patients 0-18 years. Two authors independently assessed articles. RESULTS:Eleven studies met inclusion criteria. All identified primary outcomes, however, of 9 unique primary outcomes, only 2 were used in more than one study. In total, 25 unique primary and secondary outcome measures were employed for pediatric EoE treatment trials. Measurement properties and rationale for their selection was rarely provided. Uptake of consensus-based diagnostic criteria was 25 % in trials initiated after 2011. Due to the small number and heterogeneity of studies obtained, no meta-analysis of treatment efficacy could be undertaken. This SR was limited to exclusively pediatric RCTs. CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study confirm the need for a standardized set of core outcomes that are universally reported in pediatric EoE trials. Consistent disease definition and standardized outcome reporting will facilitate meta-analyses across similar trials and inform future clinical decision-making. Systematic review registration number CRD42013003798.
| S-EPMC5006498 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBell's palsy or idiopathic facial paralysis is an acute facial paralysis caused by the inflammation of facial nerve. Several previous studies showed that acupuncture was beneficial in the treatment of facial paralysis. However, its effectiveness is still controversial compared with drug therapy. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy of acupuncture for Bell's palsy.MethodsThis is a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies among patients with Bell's palsy. We did a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies comparing the efficacy of acupuncture and drug treatment in treating facial paralysis. The search was last updated on July 2018.ResultsThe study included 11 randomized controlled trials with an overall sample of 1258 individuals. Acupuncture treatment was associated with an increased cure rate [relative risk (RR) = 1.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.41-2.21], with significant heterogeneity in the pooled results (I = 67%, P = .0008). There was a significant difference in total effective rate in acupuncture and drug treatment for Bell's palsy (RR = 1.18,95% CI: 1.07-1.31), with substantial heterogeneity (I = 90%, P < .00001).ConclusionAlthough there was not enough evidence to prove its safety, acupuncture seems to be an effective therapy for Bell's palsy. Results of the present meta-analysis showed that acupuncture was associated with increased cure rate and total effective rate of the treatment of Bell's palsy in comparison with drugs. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously, because of the poor quality and heterogeneity of the included studies. In the future, more and more high quality randomized controlled trials (RCT) are needed to prove the safety and effectiveness of acupuncture.
| S-EPMC6531040 | biostudies-literature