Dataset Information

Superiority Claims for Spinal Devices: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: Study Design:Systematic review. Objectives:Superiority claims for medical devices are commonly derived from noninferiority trials, but interpretation of such claims can be challenging. This study aimed to (a) establish the prevalence of noninferiority and superiority designs among spinal device trials, (b) assess the frequency of post hoc superiority claims from noninferiority studies, and (c) critically evaluate the risk of bias in claims that could translate to misleading conclusions. Methods:Study bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The risk of bias for the superiority claim was established based on post hoc hypothesis specification, analysis of the intention-to-treat population, post hoc modification of a priori primary outcomes, and sensitivity analyses. Results:Forty-one studies were identified from 1895 records. Nineteen (46%) were noninferiority trials. Fifteen more (37%) were noninferiority trials with a secondary superiority hypothesis specified a priori. Seven (17%) were superiority trials. Of the 34 noninferiority trials, 14 (41%) made superiority claims. A medium or high risk of bias was related to the superiority claim in 9 of those trials (64%), which was due to the analyzed population, lacking sensitivity analyses, claims not being robust during sensitivity analyses, post hoc hypotheses, or modified endpoints. Only 4 of the 14 (29%) noninferiority studies provided low bias in the superiority claim, compared with 3 of the 5 (60%) superiority trials. Conclusions:Health care decision makers should carefully evaluate the risk of bias in each superiority claim and weigh their conclusions appropriately.

SUBMITTER: Golish SR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7160807 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Superiority Claims for Spinal Devices: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Golish S Raymond SR Groff Michael W MW Araghi Ali A Inzana Jason A JA

Global spine journal 20190607 3

<h4>Study design</h4>Systematic review.<h4>Objectives</h4>Superiority claims for medical devices are commonly derived from noninferiority trials, but interpretation of such claims can be challenging. This study aimed to (<i>a</i>) establish the prevalence of noninferiority and superiority designs among spinal device trials, (<i>b</i>) assess the frequency of post hoc superiority claims from noninferiority studies, and (<i>c</i>) critically evaluate the risk of bias in claims that could translate ...[more]

PMID: 32313799

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRandomized controlled trials evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for central venous access devices, however, high complication rates remain. Scoping reviews map the available evidence and demonstrate evidence deficiencies to focus ongoing research priorities.MethodA scoping review (January 2006-December 2015) of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to improve central venous access device outcomes; including peripherally inserted central catheters, non-tunneled, tunneled and totally implanted venous access catheters. MeSH terms were used to undertake a systematic search with data extracted by two independent researchers, using a standardized data extraction form.ResultsIn total, 178 trials were included (78 non-tunneled [44%]; 40 peripherally inserted central catheters [22%]; 20 totally implanted [11%]; 12 tunneled [6%]; 6 non-specified [3%]; and 22 combined device trials [12%]). There were 119 trials (68%) involving adult participants only, with 18 (9%) pediatric and 20 (11%) neonatal trials. Insertion-related themes existed in 38% of trials (67 RCTs), 35 RCTs (20%) related to post-insertion patency, with fewer trials on infection prevention (15 RCTs, 8%), education (14RCTs, 8%), and dressing and securement (12 RCTs, 7%). There were 46 different study outcomes reported, with the most common being infection outcomes (161 outcomes; 37%), with divergent definitions used for catheter-related bloodstream and other infections.ConclusionMore high quality randomized trials across central venous access device management are necessary, especially in dressing and securement and patency. These can be encouraged by having more studies with multidisciplinary team involvement and consumer engagement. Additionally, there were extensive gaps within population sub-groups, particularly in tunneled devices, and in pediatrics and neonates. Finally, outcome definitions need to be unified for results to be meaningful and comparable across studies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical significance in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) can be determined using the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), which should inform the delta value used to determine sample size. The primary objective was to assess clinical significance in the pediatric oncology randomized controlled trial (RCT) treatment literature by evaluating: (1) the relationship between the treatment effect and the delta value as reported in the sample size calculation, and (2) the concordance between statistical and clinical significance. The secondary objective was to evaluate the reporting of methodological attributes related to clinical significance. METHODS:RCTs of pediatric cancer treatments, where a sample size calculation with a delta value was reported or could be calculated, were systematically reviewed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Childhood Cancer Group Specialized Register through CENTRAL were searched from inception to July 2016. RESULTS:RCTs (77 overall; 11 and 66), representing 95 (13 and 82) randomized questions were included for non-inferiority and superiority RCTs (herein, respectively). The minority (22.1% overall; 76.9 and 13.4%) of randomized questions reported conclusions based on clinical significance, and only 4.2% (15.4 and 2.4%) explicitly based the delta value on the MCID. Over half (67.4% overall; 92.3 and 63.4%) reported a confidence interval or standard error for the primary outcome experimental and control values and 12.6% (46.2 and 7.3%) reported the treatment effect, respectively. Of the 47 randomized questions in superiority trials that reported statistically non-significant findings, 25.5% were possibly clinically significant. Of the 24 randomized questions in superiority trials that were statistically significant, only 8.3% were definitely clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS:A minority of RCTs in the pediatric oncology literature reported methodological attributes related to clinical significance and a notable portion of statistically insignificant studies were possibly clinically significance.

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of process interventions (education for clinicians, parent presence, education of parents [before and on day of vaccination], and education of patients on day of vaccination) on reducing vaccination pain, fear, and distress and increasing the use of interventions during vaccination.Design/methodsDatabases were searched using a broad search strategy to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Critical outcomes were pain, fear, distress (when applicable), and use of pain management interventions. Data were extracted according to procedure phase (preprocedure, acute, recovery, combinations of these) and pooled using established methods. Analyses were conducted using standardized mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios (RR).ResultsThirteen studies were included. Results were generally mixed. On the basis of low to very low-quality evidence, the following specific critical outcomes showed significant effects suggesting: (1) clinicians should be educated about vaccine injection pain management (use of interventions: SMD 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47, 0.85); (2) parents should be present (distress preprocedure: SMD -0.85; 95% CI: -1.35, -0.35); (3) parents should be educated before the vaccination day (use of intervention preprocedure: SMD 0.83; 95% CI: 0.25, 1.41 and RR, 2.08; 95% CI: 1.51, 2.86; distress acute: SMD, -0.35; 95% CI: -0.57, -0.13); (4) parents should be educated on the vaccination day (use of interventions: SMD 1.02; 95% CI: 0.22, 1.83 and RR, 2.42; 95% CI: 1.47, 3.99; distress preprocedure+acute+recovery: SMD -0.48; 95% CI: -0.82, -0.15); and (5) individuals 3 years of age and above should be educated on the day of vaccination (fear preprocedure: SMD -0.67; 95% CI: -1.28, -0.07).ConclusionsEducating individuals involved in the vaccination procedure (clinicians, parents of children being vaccinated; individuals above 3 y of age) is beneficial to increase use of pain management strategies, reduce distress surrounding with vaccination, and to reduce fear. When possible, parent presence is also recommended for children undergoing vaccination.

Project description:BackgroundTelemedicine modalities, such as videoconferencing, are used by health care providers to remotely deliver health care to patients. Telemedicine use in pediatrics has increased in recent years. This has resulted in improved health care access, optimized disease management, progress in the monitoring of health conditions, and fewer exposures to patients with illnesses during pandemics (eg, the COVID-19 pandemic).ObjectiveWe aimed to systematically evaluate the most recent evidence on the feasibility and accessibility of telemedicine services, patients' and care providers' satisfaction with these services, and treatment outcomes related to telemedicine service use among pediatric populations with different health conditions.MethodsStudies were obtained from the PubMed database on May 10, 2020. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. In this review, we included randomized controlled trials from the last 10 years that used a telemedicine approach as a study intervention or assessed telemedicine as a subspecialty of pediatric care. Titles and abstracts were independently screened based on the eligibility criteria. Afterward, full texts were retrieved and independently screened based on the eligibility criteria. A standardized form was used to extract the following data: publication title, first author's name, publication year, participants' characteristics, study design, the technology-based approach that was used, intervention characteristics, study goals, and study findings.ResultsIn total, 11 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. All studies were categorized as randomized controlled trials (8/11, 73%) or cluster randomized trials (3/11, 27%). The number of participants in each study ranged from 22 to 400. The health conditions that were assessed included obesity (3/11, 27%), asthma (2/11, 18%), mental health conditions (1/11, 9%), otitis media (1/11, 9%), skin conditions (1/11, 9%), type 1 diabetes (1/11, 9%), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (1/11, 9%), and cystic fibrosis-related pancreatic insufficiency (1/11). The telemedicine approaches that were used included patient and doctor videoconferencing visits (5/11, 45%), smartphone-based interventions (3/11, 27%), telephone counseling (2/11, 18%), and telemedicine-based screening visits (1/11, 9%). The telemedicine interventions in all included studies resulted in outcomes that were comparable to or better than the outcomes of control groups. These outcomes were related to symptom management, quality of life, satisfaction, medication adherence, visit completion rates, and disease progression.ConclusionsAlthough more research is needed, the evidence from this review suggests that telemedicine services for the general public and pediatric care are comparable to or better than in-person services. Patients, health care professionals, and caregivers may benefit from using both telemedicine services and traditional, in-person health care services. To maximize the potential of telemedicine, future research should focus on improving patients' access to care, increasing the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine services, and eliminating barriers to telemedicine use.

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.

Dataset Information

Superiority Claims for Spinal Devices: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Publications

Superiority Claims for Spinal Devices: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure