Dataset Information

Inadequate description of placebo and sham controls in a systematic review of recent trials.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Poorly described placebo/sham controls make it difficult to appraise active intervention benefits and harms. The 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was developed to improve the reporting of active interventions. The extent to which TIDieR has been used to improve description of placebo or sham control is not known. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We systematically identified and examined all placebo/sham-controlled randomised trials published in 2018 in the top six general medical journals. We reported how many of the TIDieR checklist items were used to describe the placebo/sham control(s). We supplemented this with a sample of 100 placebo/sham-controlled trials from any journal and searched Google Scholar to identify placebo/sham-controlled trials citing TIDieR. RESULTS:We identified 94 placebo/sham-controlled trials published in the top journals in 2018. None reported using TIDieR, and none reported placebo or sham components completely. On average eight TIDieR items were addressed, with placebo/sham control name (100%) and when and how much was administered (97.9%) most commonly reported. Some items (rationale, 8.5%, whether there were modifications, 25.5%) were less often reported. In our sample of less well-cited journals, reporting was poorer (average of six items) and followed a similar pattern. Since TIDieR's first publication, six placebo-controlled trials have cited it according to Google Scholar. Two of these used the checklist to describe placebo controls; neither one completely desribed the placebo intervention. CONCLUSIONS:Placebo and sham controls are poorly described within randomised trials, and TIDieR is rarely used to guide these descriptions. We recommend developing guidelines to promote better descriptions of placebo/sham control components within clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Webster RK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6819221 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Inadequate description of placebo and sham controls in a systematic review of recent trials.

Webster Rebecca K RK Howick Jeremy J Hoffmann Tammy T Macdonald Helen H Collins Gary S GS Rees Jonathan L JL Napadow Vitaly V Madigan Claire C Price Amy A Lamb Sarah E SE Bishop Felicity L FL Bokelmann Klara K Papanikitas Andrew A Roberts Nia N Evers Andrea W M AWM

European journal of clinical investigation 20190930 11

<h4>Background</h4>Poorly described placebo/sham controls make it difficult to appraise active intervention benefits and harms. The 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was developed to improve the reporting of active interventions. The extent to which TIDieR has been used to improve description of placebo or sham control is not known.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We systematically identified and examined all placebo/sham-controlled randomised trials p ...[more]

PMID: 31519047

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To explore the commonly utilized sham acupressure procedures in existing acupressure trials, and to assess whether different types of sham interventions yield different therapeutic outcomes, and, as far as possible, to identify directions for the future development of an adequate sham acupressure method. METHODS:Randomized controlled trials comparing true acupressure with sham interventions were included. Thirteen electronic databases were adopted to locate relevant studies from inception to July 3, 2014. Meanwhile, eight Chinese journals on complementary and alternative medicine were manually searched to locate eligible articles. In addition, eligible studies listed in the reference lists of the included papers and other related systematic reviews on acupressure were also screened to further search any potentially eligible trials. Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the risk of bias assessment tool developed by the Cochrane Back Review Group. Descriptive analysis was adopted to summarize the therapeutic outcomes. RESULTS:Sixty-six studies with 7265 participants were included. Methodological quality of the included trials was generally satisfactory. Six types of sham acupressure approaches were identified and "non-acupoint" stimulation was the most frequently utilized sham point while an acupressure device was the most commonly used approach for administering sham treatments. Acupressure therapy was a beneficial approach in managing a variety of health problems and the therapeutic effect was found to be more effective in the true acupressure groups than that in the sham comparative groups. No clear association could be identified between different sham acupressure modalities and the reported treatment outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:A great diversity of sham acupressure controls have been used in clinical practice and research. A solid conclusion whether different sham alternatives are related to different treatment outcomes cannot be derived because of significant clinical heterogeneity among the analyzed trials. Non-acupoints are generally recommended but the definite locations should be identified with caution. For studies using single sham acupoints on hands or legs, it is suggested to apply identical acupressure devices on the same acupoint as in the active intervention without any stimulation. While for studies on pain, stimulation of sham acupoints should be avoided.

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:BackgroundPlacebo or sham controls are the standard against which the benefits and harms of many active interventions are measured. Whilst the components and the method of their delivery have been shown to affect study outcomes, placebo and sham controls are rarely reported and often not matched to those of the active comparator. This can influence how beneficial or harmful the active intervention appears to be. Without adequate descriptions of placebo or sham controls, it is difficult to interpret results about the benefits and harms of active interventions within placebo-controlled trials. To overcome this problem, we developed a checklist and guide for reporting placebo or sham interventions.Methods and findingsWe developed an initial list of items for the checklist by surveying experts in placebo research (n = 14). Because of the diverse contexts in which placebo or sham treatments are used in clinical research, we consulted experts in trials of drugs, surgery, physiotherapy, acupuncture, and psychological interventions. We then used a multistage online Delphi process with 53 participants to determine which items were deemed to be essential. We next convened a group of experts and stakeholders (n = 16). Our main output was a modification of the existing Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist; this allows the key features of both active interventions and placebo or sham controls to be concisely summarised by researchers. The main differences between TIDieR-Placebo and the original TIDieR are the explicit requirement to describe the setting (i.e., features of the physical environment that go beyond geographic location), the need to report whether blinding was successful (when this was measured), and the need to present the description of placebo components alongside those of the active comparator.ConclusionsWe encourage TIDieR-Placebo to be used alongside TIDieR to assist the reporting of placebo or sham components and the trials in which they are used.

Project description:BackgroundPlacebo, defined as "false treatment," is a common gold-standard method to assess the validity of a therapy both in pharmacological trials and manual medicine research where placebo is also referred to as "sham therapy." In the medical literature, guidelines have been proposed on how to conduct robust placebo-controlled trials, but mainly in a drug-based scenario. In contrast, there are not precise guidelines on how to conduct a placebo-controlled in manual medicine trials (particularly osteopathy). The aim of the present systematic review was to report how and what type of sham methods, dosage, operator characteristics, and patient types were used in osteopathic clinical trials and, eventually, assess sham clinical effectiveness.MethodsA systematic Cochrane-based review was conducted by analyzing the osteopathic trials that used both manual and nonmanual placebo control. Searches were conducted on 8 databases from journal inception to December 2015 using a pragmatic literature search approach. Two independent reviewers conducted the study selection and data extraction for each study. The risk of bias was evaluated according to the Cochrane methods.ResultsA total of 64 studies were eligible for analysis collecting a total of 5024 participants. More than half (43 studies) used a manual placebo; 9 studies used a nonmanual placebo; and 12 studies used both manual and nonmanual placebo. Data showed lack of reporting sham therapy information across studies. Risk of bias analysis demonstrated a high risk of bias for allocation, blinding of personnel and participants, selective, and other bias. To explore the clinical effects of sham therapies used, a quantitative analysis was planned. However, due to the high heterogeneity of sham approaches used no further analyses were performed.ConclusionHigh heterogeneity regarding placebo used between studies, lack of reporting information on placebo methods and within-study variability between sham and real treatment procedures suggest prudence in reading and interpreting study findings in manual osteopathic randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Efforts must be made to promote guidelines to design the most reliable placebo for manual RCTs as a means of increasing the internal validity and improve external validity of findings.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess aspects of the internal validity of recently published cluster randomised trials and explore the reporting of information useful in assessing the external validity of these trials.DesignReview of 34 cluster randomised trials in primary care published in 2004 and 2005 in seven journals (British Medical Journal, British Journal of General Practice, Family Practice, Preventive Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Pediatrics).Data sourcesNational Library of Medicine (Medline) via PubMed.Data extractionTo assess aspects of internal validity we extracted data on appropriateness of sample size calculations and analyses, methods of identifying and recruiting individual participants, and blinding. To explore reporting of information useful in assessing external validity we extracted data on cluster eligibility, cluster inclusion and retention, cluster generalisability, and the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention to health providers in clusters.Results21 (62%) trials accounted for clustering in sample size calculations and 30 (88%) in the analysis; about a quarter were potentially biased because of procedures surrounding recruitment and identification of patients; individual participants were blind to allocation status in 19 (56%) and outcome assessors were blind in 15 (44%). In almost half the reports, information relating to generalisability of clusters was poorly reported, and in two fifths there was no information about the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention.ConclusionsCluster randomised trials are essential for evaluating certain types of interventions. Issues affecting their internal validity, such as appropriate sample size calculations and analysis, have been widely disseminated and are now better addressed by researchers. Blinding of those identifying and recruiting patients to allocation status is recommended but is not always carried out. There may be fewer barriers to internal validity in trials in which individual participants are not recruited. External validity seems poorly addressed in many trials, yet is arguably as important as internal validity in judging quality as a basis for healthcare intervention.

Project description:Background:There is debate in the literature as to whether inclusion of a placebo arm may alter characteristics of antidepressant trials. However, previous research has focused on response rates of various antidepressants on average only, ignoring potential differences among drugs or other aspects of trial findings. Little is known about the impact of a placebo arm on all-cause dropout and dropout due to adverse events. Methods:We carried out a systematic review of published and unpublished double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the acute treatment of unipolar major depression (update: January 2016). The probability of being allocated to placebo (?) was the exposure of interest, and we examined its influence on responders (efficacy), all-cause dropouts (acceptability) and dropouts due to adverse events (tolerability), while accounting for differences in drugs, trials and patient characteristics in multivariate random effects meta-regression. Results:We included 421 studies (68 305 participants) comparing 16 antidepressants or placebo; ? ranged from 20% to 50%. Response rate was lower [risk ratio (RR) 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 0.92] and all-cause dropout rate higher (RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.08, 1.31) for the same antidepressants in placebo-controlled trials compared with head-to-head trials. The probability of responding decreased by 3% (95% CI 2-5%) for every 10% increase in ?, whereas the risk of all-cause dropout increased by 4% (95% CI 1-7%). Tolerability was unaffected by ?. Response rate was inversely correlated with dropouts due to any cause (correlation coefficient -0.48; 95% CI -0.58, -0.36) and due to adverse events (-0.34; 95% CI -0.44, -0.23). Conclusions:For the same antidepressant, response rate was on average smaller and dropouts higher when placebo was included; however, no association was found with dropouts due to adverse events. Decreased patient expectations, larger dropout rates and use of inappropriate statistical methods to impute missing data may explain this phenomenon. The findings call for caution in the integration of randomized evidence involving placebo arms.

Dataset Information

Inadequate description of placebo and sham controls in a systematic review of recent trials.

Publications

Inadequate description of placebo and sham controls in a systematic review of recent trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets