Dataset Information

Exclusion rates in randomized controlled trials of treatments for physical conditions: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The generalisability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be uncertain because the impact of exclusion criteria is rarely quantified. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies examining the percentage of clinical populations with a physical health condition who would be excluded by RCTs of treatments for that condition.

Methods

Medline and Embase were searched from inception to Feb 11th 2018. Two reviewers independently completed screening, full-text review, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients in the clinical population who would have been excluded from each examined trial. Subgroup analyses examined exclusion by population setting, publication date and funding source.

Results

Titles/abstracts (20,754) were screened, and 50 studies were included which reported exclusion rates from 305 trials of treatments in 31 physical conditions. Estimated rates of exclusion from trials varied from 0% to 100%, and the median exclusion rate was 77.1% of patients (interquartile range 55.5% to 89.0% exclusion). Median exclusion rates for trials in common chronic conditions were high, including hypertension 83.0%, type 2 diabetes 81.7%, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 84.3%, and asthma 96.0%. The most commonly applied exclusion criteria related to age, co-morbidity and co-prescribing, whereas more implicit criteria relating to life expectancy or functional status were not typically examined. There was no evidence that exclusion varied by the nature of the clinical population in which exclusion was evaluated or trial funding source. There was no statistically significant change in exclusion rates in more recent compared with older trials.

Conclusions

The majority of trials of treatments for physical conditions examined excluded the majority of patients with the condition being treated. Almost a quarter of the trials studied excluded over 90% of patients, more than half of trials excluded at least three quarters of patients, and four out of five trials excluded at least half of patients. A limitation is that most studies applied only a subset of eligibility criteria, so exclusion rates are likely under-estimated. Exclusion from trials of older people and people with co-morbidity and co-prescribing is increasingly untenable given population aging and increasing multimorbidity.

Trial registration

PROSPERO registration CRD42016042282.

SUBMITTER: He J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7045589 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exclusion rates in randomized controlled trials of treatments for physical conditions: a systematic review.

He Jinzhang J Morales Daniel R DR Guthrie Bruce B

Trials 20200226 1

<h4>Background</h4>The generalisability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be uncertain because the impact of exclusion criteria is rarely quantified. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies examining the percentage of clinical populations with a physical health condition who would be excluded by RCTs of treatments for that condition.<h4>Methods</h4>Medline and Embase were searched from inception to Feb 11th 2018. Two reviewers independently completed screening, full-t ...[more]

PMID: 32102686

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of physical and procedural interventions for reducing pain and related outcomes during vaccination.Design/methodsDatabases were searched using a broad search strategy to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Data were extracted according to procedure phase (preprocedure, acute, recovery, and combinations of these) and pooled using established methods.ResultsA total of 31 studies were included. Acute infant distress was diminished during intramuscular injection without aspiration (n=313): standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.18, -0.46). Injecting the most painful vaccine last during vaccinations reduced acute infant distress (n=196): SMD -0.69 (95% CI: -0.98, -0.4). Simultaneous injections reduced acute infant distress compared with sequential injections (n=172): SMD -0.56 (95% CI: -0.87, -0.25). There was no benefit of simultaneous injections in children. Less infant distress during the acute and recovery phases combined occurred with vastus lateralis (vs. deltoid) injections (n=185): SMD -0.70 (95% CI: -1.00, -0.41). Skin-to-skin contact in neonates (n=736) reduced acute distress: SMD -0.65 (95% CI: -1.05, -0.25). Holding infants reduced acute distress after removal of the data from 1 methodologically diverse study (n=107): SMD -1.25 (95% CI: -2.05, -0.46). Holding after vaccination (n=417) reduced infant distress during the acute and recovery phases combined: SMD -0.65 (95% CI: -1.08, -0.22). Self-reported fear was reduced for children positioned upright (n=107): SMD -0.39 (95% CI: -0.77, -0.01). Non-nutritive sucking (n=186) reduced acute distress in infants: SMD -1.88 (95% CI: -2.57, -1.18). Manual tactile stimulation did not reduce pain across the lifespan. An external vibrating device and cold reduced pain in children (n=145): SMD -1.23 (95% CI: -1.58, -0.87). There was no benefit of warming the vaccine in adults. Muscle tension was beneficial in selected indices of fainting in adolescents and adults.ConclusionsInterventions with evidence of benefit in select populations include: no aspiration, injecting most painful vaccine last, simultaneous injections, vastus lateralis injection, positioning interventions, non-nutritive sucking, external vibrating device with cold, and muscle tension.

Project description:BackgroundBlinding is a cornerstone of therapeutic evaluation because lack of blinding can bias treatment effect estimates. An inventory of the blinding methods would help trialists conduct high-quality clinical trials and readers appraise the quality of results of published trials. We aimed to systematically classify and describe methods to establish and maintain blinding of patients and health care providers and methods to obtain blinding of outcome assessors in randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatments.Methods and findingsWe undertook a systematic review of all reports of randomized controlled trials assessing pharmacologic treatments with blinding published in 2004 in high impact-factor journals from Medline and the Cochrane Methodology Register. We used a standardized data collection form to extract data. The blinding methods were classified according to whether they primarily (1) established blinding of patients or health care providers, (2) maintained the blinding of patients or health care providers, and (3) obtained blinding of assessors of the main outcomes. We identified 819 articles, with 472 (58%) describing the method of blinding. Methods to establish blinding of patients and/or health care providers concerned mainly treatments provided in identical form, specific methods to mask some characteristics of the treatments (e.g., added flavor or opaque coverage), or use of double dummy procedures or simulation of an injection. Methods to avoid unblinding of patients and/or health care providers involved use of active placebo, centralized assessment of side effects, patients informed only in part about the potential side effects of each treatment, centralized adapted dosage, or provision of sham results of complementary investigations. The methods reported for blinding outcome assessors mainly relied on a centralized assessment of complementary investigations, clinical examination (i.e., use of video, audiotape, or photography), or adjudication of clinical events.ConclusionsThis review classifies blinding methods and provides a detailed description of methods that could help trialists overcome some barriers to blinding in clinical trials and readers interpret the quality of pharmacologic trials.

Project description:Study objectivesInsomnia is a debilitating comorbidity of chronic pain. This study evaluated the effect of nonpharmacological sleep treatments on patient-reported sleep quality, pain, and well-being in people with long-term cancer and non-cancer (e.g., back pain, arthritis, fibromyalgia) pain conditions.DesignWe systematically searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsychINFO for relevant studies. Search period was set to inception of these databases to March 2014. Studies were included if they were: original randomized controlled trials (RCTs); testing a nonpharmacological intervention; that targets sleep; in adults; with painful health conditions; that has a control group; includes a measure of sleep quality; and at least one other health and well-being outcome.Measurement and findingsMeans and standard deviations of sleep quality, pain, fatigue, depression, anxiety, physical and psychological functioning were extracted for the sleep treatment and control groups at baseline, posttreatment and final follow-up. Methodological details concerning the treatment, participants, and study design were abstracted to guide heterogeneity and subgroup analyses. Eleven RCTs involving 1,066 participants (mean age 45-61 years) met the criteria for the meta-analysis. There was no systematic evidence of publication bias. Nonpharmacological sleep treatments in chronic pain patients were associated with a large improvement in sleep quality (standardized mean difference = 0.78, 95% Confidence Interval [0.42, 1.13]; P < 0.001), small reduction in pain (0.18 [0, 0.36] P < 0.05), and moderate improvement in fatigue (0.38 [0.08, 0.69]; P < 0.01) at posttreatment. The effects on sleep quality and fatigue were maintained at follow-up (up to 1 year) when a moderate reduction in depression (0.31, [0.09, 0.53]; P < 0.01) was also observed. Both cancer and non-cancer pain patients benefited from nonpharmacological sleep treatments. Face-to-face treatments achieved better outcomes than those delivered over the phone/internet.ConclusionsAlthough the body of evidence was small, nonpharmacological sleep interventions may represent a fruitful avenue for optimizing treatment outcomes in patients with chronic pain.RegistrationPROSPERO registration: CRD42013004131.

Project description:BackgroundBlended care interventions combine therapeutic guidance with digital care. Current research results show the promising role of the blended care approach in clinical care. This new way of delivering health care could have the potential to effectively promote physical activity in different public health settings.ObjectiveThe aim of the systematic review is to investigate the varieties of intervention characteristics of blended care interventions to promote physical activity in terms of structure, behavior change goals, behavior change techniques, and effectiveness of blended care interventions compared to a control group.MethodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials published from 2000 to March 2021 in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science according to the PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Study characteristics, intervention characteristics, and outcome data were extracted. Furthermore, the effect size on the outcome of physical activity was examined or calculated.ResultsIn total, the number of reports identified from the database searches was 4828. Of these, 25 studies were included in the review, with a total of 5923 study participants. Results indicated that the characteristics of blended care interventions showed a high heterogeneity. The combinations of therapist-guided interventions and digital interventions allowed the identification of specific subgroups, but they varied in length (range 8-52 weeks, SD 16.6), intensity, and the combination of the components. The most used combination of blended care interventions to promote physical activity was the combination of one-on-one meetings via telephone and Web-based interventions. Motivational models of behavior change were used most frequently as underlying theoretical foundations. Certain behavior change techniques were used consistently across the individual components, e.g., "problem solving" in the therapist-guided component and "feedback on behavior" in the digital component. Considering the effect size of blended care interventions compared with control groups, most studies showed a small effect.ConclusionsIt can be concluded that blended care interventions have potential to promote physical activity. In the future, further high-quality studies should investigate which type of blended care intervention is effective for which target group. Additionally, insights are required on which intervention characteristics are most effective, taking into account new evidence on behavior change. Registration This systematic literature review was registered in PROSPERO ( CRD42020188556 ).

Project description:Both cupping therapy and acupuncture have been used in China for a long time, and their target indications are pain-related conditions. There is no systematic review comparing the effectiveness of these two therapies.To compare the beneficial effectiveness and safety between cupping therapy and acupuncture for pain-related conditions to provide evidence for clinical practice.Protocol of this review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016050986). We conducted literature search from six electronic databases until 31st March 2017. We included randomized trials comparing cupping therapy with acupuncture on pain-related conditions. Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by risk of bias tool. Mean difference, risk ratio, risk difference and their 95% confidence interval were used to report the estimate effect of the pooled results through meta-analysis or the results from each individual study. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was applied to adjust random errors and calculate the sample size.Twenty-three randomized trials with 2845 participants were included covering 12 pain-related conditions. All included studies were of poor methodological quality. Three meta-analyses were conducted, which showed similar clinical beneficial effects of cupping therapy and acupuncture for the rate of symptom improvement in cervical spondylosis (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.26; n = 646), lateral femoral cutaneous neuritis (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.22; n = 102) and scapulohumeral periarthritis (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.51; n = 208). Results from other outcomes (such as visual analogue and numerical rating scale) in each study also showed no statistical significant difference between these two therapies for all included pain-related conditions. The results of TSA for cervical spondylosis demonstrated that the current available data have not reached a powerful conclusion. No serious adverse events related to cupping therapy or acupuncture was found in included studies.Cupping therapy and acupuncture are potentially safe, and they have similar effectiveness in relieving pain. However, further rigorous studies investigating relevant pain-related conditions are warranted to establish comparative effectiveness analysis between these two therapies. Cost-effectiveness studies should be considered in the future studies to establish evidence for decision-making in clinical practice.

Project description:The advantages of transdiagnostic protocols for emotional disorders (ED) (anxiety and depression) include the ability to treat multiple psychological disorders using the same treatment protocol, and the capacity to better address comorbidity. Comorbidity in ED has been associated with higher rates of severity, functional impairment, and chronicity. However, no attempts have been made in the literature to systematically review whether these studies include assessments to evaluate the treatment response in comorbid diagnoses, in addition to the principal diagnosis. Moreover, transdiagnostic treatments have been developed for a range of ED, but to date no study has analyzed the real distribution of diagnoses in these studies. The current study aimed to analyze: a) whether treatment response in comorbidity is evaluated in transdiagnostic treatments for ED; b) what diagnoses are targeted in transdiagnostic treatments for ED; and c) the real distribution of the diagnoses at baseline in these studies. A systematic search of the literature was conducted in PsycINFO, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Fifty-two randomized controlled trials were identified, with a total of 7007 adult participants. The results showed that, although most of the studies reported data on comorbidity at baseline, only 40% of them examined the effects of the intervention on the comorbid disorders. The most commonly targeted diagnoses in transdiagnostic protocols were panic/agoraphobia, generalized anxiety, social anxiety, and depression. Other disorders, such as obsessive-compulsive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and anxiety/depression not otherwise specified, were marginally included in these studies. Regarding the distribution of diagnoses at baseline, generalized anxiety, panic/agoraphobia, social anxiety, and depression were the most frequently observed, whereas depression not otherwise specified was the least represented. The results highlight the importance of assessing comorbidity in addition to the principal diagnoses in transdiagnostic treatments, in order to draw conclusions about the true potential of these interventions to improve comorbid symptoms. Implications of the current study and directions for future research are discussed.

Dataset Information

Exclusion rates in randomized controlled trials of treatments for physical conditions: a systematic review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Exclusion rates in randomized controlled trials of treatments for physical conditions: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets