Dataset Information

Protocol for a systematic scoping review of reasons given to justify the performance of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely viewed to generate the most reliable medical knowledge. However, RCTs are not always scientifically necessary and therefore not always ethical. Unfortunately, it is not clear when an RCT is not necessary or how this should be established. This study seeks to systematically catalogue justifications offered throughout the medical and ethics literature for performing randomisation within clinical trials.

Methods and analysis

We will systematically search electronic databases of the medical literature including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Web of Science Proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov; databases of philosophical literature including Philosopher's Index, Phil Papers, JSTOR, Periodicals Archive Online, Project MUSE, National Reference Centre for Bioethics; the library catalogue at the University of Ottawa; bibliographies of retrieved papers; and the grey literature. We will also pursue suggestions from experts in the fields of medical ethics, philosophy and clinical trial methodology. Article screening, selection and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers based on prespecified inclusion/exclusion criteria. A third reviewer will be consulted to resolve any discrepancies. We will then extract the reasons given to justify randomisation using methodology established to extract data in a defensible, systematic manner. We will track the reasons given, their frequency of use and changes over time. Finally, using grounded theory, we will combine the reasons into broader themes. These themes will form the foundation of our subsequent analysis from qualitative and quantitative perspectives. This review will map existing arguments that clinicians, ethicists and philosophers use to ethically justify randomisation in clinical trials.

Ethics and dissemination

No research ethics board approval is necessary because we are not examining patient-level data. This protocol complies with the reported guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. The findings of this paper will be disseminated via presentations and academic publication. In a subsequent phase of this research, we hope to engage with stakeholders and translate any recommendations derived from our findings into operational guidelines.

SUBMITTER: Dewar B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6661623 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Protocol for a systematic scoping review of reasons given to justify the performance of randomised controlled trials.

Dewar Brian B Fedyk Mark M Jurkovic Lucas L Chevrier Stephanie S Rodriguez Rosendo R Kitto Simon C SC Saginur Raphael R Shamy Michel M

BMJ open 20190726 7

<h4>Introduction</h4>Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely viewed to generate the most reliable medical knowledge. However, RCTs are not always scientifically necessary and therefore not always ethical. Unfortunately, it is not clear when an RCT is not necessary or how this should be established. This study seeks to systematically catalogue justifications offered throughout the medical and ethics literature for performing randomisation within clinical trials.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4 ...[more]

PMID: 31350242

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) aim to assess the effect of one (or more) unproven health interventions relative to other reference interventions. RCTs sometimes use an ordinal outcome, which is an endpoint that comprises of multiple, monotonically ordered categories that are not necessarily separated by a quantifiable distance. Ordinal outcomes are appealing in clinical settings as specific disease states can represent meaningful categories that may be of clinical importance to researchers. Ordinal outcomes can also retain information and increase statistical power compared to dichotomised outcomes and can allow multiple clinical outcomes to be comprised in a single endpoint. Target parameters for ordinal outcomes in RCTs may vary depending on the nature of the research question, the modelling assumptions and the expertise of the data analyst. The aim of this scoping review is to systematically describe the use of ordinal outcomes in contemporary RCTs. Specifically, we aim to: [Formula: see text] Identify which target parameters are of interest in trials that use an ordinal outcome, and whether these parameters are explicitly defined. [Formula: see text] Describe how ordinal outcomes are analysed in RCTs to estimate a treatment effect. [Formula: see text] Describe whether RCTs that use an ordinal outcome adequately report key methodological aspects specific to the analysis of the ordinal outcome. Results from this review will outline the current state of practice of the use of ordinal outcomes in RCTs. Ways to improve the analysis and reporting of ordinal outcomes in RCTs will be discussed.Methods and analysisWe will review RCTs that are published in the top four medical journals (British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the Journal of the American Medical Association) between 1 January 2012 and 31 July 2022 that use an ordinal outcome as either a primary or a secondary outcome. The review will identify articles through a PubMed-specific search strategy. Our review will adhere to guidelines for scoping reviews as described in the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The study characteristics and details of the study design and analysis, including the target parameter(s) and statistical methods used to analyse the ordinal outcome, will be extracted from eligible studies. The screening, review and data extraction will be conducted using Covidence, a web-based tool for managing systematic reviews. The data will be summarised using descriptive statistics.

Project description:Randomised control trials are regarded as the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness and efficacy of healthcare interventions with thousands of trials published every year. Despite significant investment in infrastructure, a staggering number of clinical trials continue to face challenges with retention. Dropouts could lead to negative consequences-from lengthy delays to missing data that can undermine the results and integrity of the trial. Summarising evidence from non-randomised evaluations of retention strategies could provide complementary information to randomised evaluations that could guide trialists to the most effective ways of increasing retention of participants in clinical trials.The following electronic databases will be searched for relevant studies: EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and Cochrane Methodology Register and the search will be limited to English-published studies during the last 10 years to increase relevance to current trials. Non-randomised studies (observational studies) including a comparison of two or more strategies to increase participant retention in randomised trials or comparing one or more strategies with no strategy will be included. The primary outcome will be the proportion of participants remained at the primary analysis as determined in each retention study.This review aims to gather and evaluate evidence on the effect of retention strategies examined in non-randomised studies. It is imperative to collect evidence from obseravational studies to infer whether or not these studies could be considered a practical way to complement or even replace a broadly favourable randomised design. If we find that non-randomised studies to be included in this review are of high quality with adequate control of biases, we will recommend to trialists and others not to rely exclusively on randomised studies and to give meticulous attention to the plentiful evidence that can be obtained from non-randomised studies. Should the results of this review suggest that evaluating retention strategies in observational studies provides insufficient evidence to trialists planning their retention strategies, we will be able to say that there is little point in conducting non-randomised studies and that they would do better to invest their time and resources in a randomised evaluation if possible. Where a non-randomised study design is chosen, the review authors will offer recommendations to trialists and others regarding how to ensure that these studies are conducted in a way that can minimise the risk of bias and increase confidence in the findings.PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017072775 .

Project description:BackgroundNon-retention of participants seriously affects the credibility of clinical trial results and significantly reduces the potential of a trial to influence clinical practice. Non-retention can be defined as instances where participants leave the study prematurely. Examples include withdrawal of consent and loss to follow-up and thus outcome data cannot be obtained. The majority of existing interventions targeting retention fail to describe any theoretical basis for the observed improvement, or lack of improvement. Moreover, most of these interventions lack involvement of participants in their conception and/or design, raising questions about their relevance and acceptability. Many of the causes of non-retention involve people performing a behaviour (e.g. not returning a questionnaire). Behaviour change is difficult, and the importance of a strong theoretical basis for interventions that aim to change behaviour is increasingly recognised. This research aims to develop and pilot theoretically informed, participant-centred, evidence-based behaviour change interventions to improve retention in trials.MethodsThis research will generate data through semi-structured interviews on stakeholders' perspectives of the reasons for trial non-retention. It will identify perceived barriers and enablers to trial retention using the Theoretical Domains Framework. The intervention development work will involve identification of behaviour change techniques, using recognised methodology, and co-production of retention interventions through discussion groups with end-users. An evaluation of intervention acceptability and feasibility will be conducted in focus groups. Finally, a ready-to-use evaluation framework to deploy in Studies Within A Trial as well as an explanatory retention framework will be developed for identifying and tackling modifiable issues to improve trial retention.DiscussionWe believe this to be one of the first studies to apply a theoretical lens to the development of interventions to improve trial retention that have been informed by, and are embedded within, participants' experiential accounts. By developing and identifying priority interventions this study will support efforts to reduce research waste.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Randomised trial protocols may incorporate interim analyses, with the potential to stop the study for futility if early data show insufficient promise of a treatment benefit. Previously, we have shown that this approach will theoretically lead to mis-estimation of the treatment effect. We now wished to ascertain the importance of this phenomenon in practice. METHODS:We reviewed the methods and results in a set of trials that had stopped for futility, identified through an extensive literature search. We recorded clinical areas, interventions, study design, outcomes, trial setting, sponsorship, planned and actual treatment effects, sample sizes; power; and if there was a data safety monitoring board, or a published protocol. We identified: if interim analyses were pre-specified, and how many analyses actually occurred; what pre-specified criteria might define futility; if a futility analysis formed the basis for stopping; who made the decision to stop; and the conditional power of each study, i.e. the probability of statistically significant results if the study were to continue to its complete sample size. RESULTS:We identified 52 eligible trials, covering many clinical areas. Most trials had multiple centres, tested drugs, and 40% were industry sponsored. There were 75% where at least one interim analysis was planned a priori; a majority had only one interim analysis, typically with about half the target total sample size. A majority of trials did not pre-define a stopping rule, and a variety of reasons were given for stopping. Few studies calculated and reported low conditional power to justify the early stop. When conditional power could be calculated, it was typically low, especially under the current trend hypothesis. However, under the original design hypothesis, a few studies had relatively high conditional power. Data collection often continued after the interim analysis. CONCLUSIONS:Although other factors will typically be involved, we conclude that, from the perspective of conditional power, stopping early for futility was probably reasonable in most cases, but documentation of the basis for stopping was often missing or vague. Interpretation of truncated trials would be enhanced by improved reporting of stopping protocols, and of their actual execution.

Project description:BackgroundPain is a universal experience and the most common reason for seeking healthcare. Inadequate pain management negatively impacts numerous aspects of patient health. Multidisciplinary treatment programmes, including psychosocial interventions, are more useful for pain management than purely biomedical treatment alone. Recently, researchers showed increasing interest in understanding the role of spirituality/religiosity and spiritual/religious practices on pain experience, with engagement in religious practices, such as prayer, showing to positively impact pain experience in religious individuals. This systematic review will seek to summarise and integrate the existing findings from randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of prayer and prayer-based interventions on pain experience.MethodsThe systematic review procedures and its report will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Electronic searches in nine databases (Web of Science Core Collection, MEDLINE, SCIELO Citation Index, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trial, PsycINFO, Scopus, LILACS and Open-SIGLE) will be performed to identify randomised controlled trials of prayer-based interventions. Two independent researchers will assess studies for inclusion and extract data from each paper. Risk of bias assessment will be assessed independently by two reviewers based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. Qualitative synthesis of the body of research will be conducted using a narrative summary synthesis method. Meta-analysis will be limited to studies reporting on the same primary outcome. Formal searches are planned to start in June 2021. The final report is anticipated to be completed by September 2021.DiscussionFindings will be useful to (1) understand the condition of our knowledge in this field and (2) provide evidence for prayer effectiveness in reducing pain intensity and pain-related stress and increasing pain tolerance in adults experiencing acute or chronic pain.Prospero registration numberCRD42020221733.

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.

Dataset Information

Protocol for a systematic scoping review of reasons given to justify the performance of randomised controlled trials.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Publications

Protocol for a systematic scoping review of reasons given to justify the performance of randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets