Dataset Information

Surgical clinical trials with non-inferiority design: a cross-sectional bibliometric analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Wide-spread concerns have been raised about possible bias in published surgical non-inferiority trials. Therefore, we performed a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to identify the existence of bias, and provided recommendations for future non-inferiority trials.

Methods

Databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched (last update on 27 April 2020) to include published phase II and phase III non-inferiority surgical trials. We collected general information and parameters associated with trial design. The association between extracted factors and establishment of non-inferiority was then analyzed.

Results

A total of 347 trials were included in this study. Only 13 (3.7%) trials reported the pre-specified non-inferiority margin in registration, and 99 (28.5%) trials justified margin selection in ultimate trial publications. A significant association was found between industry funding and increased odds of achieving non-inferiority [odds ratio (OR): 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06 to 1.30, P=0.001]. Moreover, trials which had been presented in conferences were less likely to claim non-inferiority (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.99, P=0.035).

Conclusions

Our study was the first quantitative analysis revealing the presence of biases in findings of existing surgical non-inferiority trials, which could possibly mislead surgeons' clinical decision making. We suggest improving reporting of detailed study design especially funding sources as well as margin justification for future trials. We also encourage conference presentation of ongoing trials prior to the ultimate publication.

SUBMITTER: Shu C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8422099 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Surgical clinical trials with non-inferiority design: a cross-sectional bibliometric analysis.

Shu Chi C Huang Bin B Yuan Ding D Yang Yi Y Du Xiaojiong X He Yazhou Y Chen Xin X Zhao Jichun J

Annals of translational medicine 20210801 16

<h4>Background</h4>Wide-spread concerns have been raised about possible bias in published surgical non-inferiority trials. Therefore, we performed a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to identify the existence of bias, and provided recommendations for future non-inferiority trials.<h4>Methods</h4>Databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched (last update on 27 April 2020) to include published phase II and phase III non-i ...[more]

PMID: 34532439

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Poor accrual is a significant barrier to the successful completion of oncology clinical trials; half of all phase 3 oncology trials close due to insufficient accrual. Timely access to accrual data fosters an understanding of successful trial design and can be used to inform the design of new clinical trials prospectively. Accrual statistics are available within research networks, such as the cancer cooperative groups, but comprehensive data reflecting the overall portfolio of cancer clinical trials are lacking. As a demonstration case, the purpose of this study was to quantify the public availability of accrual data across all recent renal cell carcinoma (RCC) trials. METHODS: The database for the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT) summarizes all trials registered between October 2007 and September 2010. In total, 108 trials of pharmacologic therapy for RCC were included. Accrual data on these trials were gathered via ClinicalTrials.gov (CTG), a manual review of resulting publications, and online surveys sent to principle investigators or trial coordinators. RESULTS: In total, 26% (20 of 76) of trials listing a government, academic, or cooperative group (GAC) sponsor responded to the survey vs 0% (0 of 32) of those listing only industry sponsors. Across all methods, accrual data were available for only 40% (43 of 108) of trials, including 37% (28 of 76) of GAC trials and 47% (15 of 32) of industry trials. Moreover, 87% (66 of 76) of GAC trials were ongoing (open, actively recruiting, or of unknown status) vs 75% (24 of 32) of industry trials, while 9% (10 of 108) of trials were terminated or suspended. CONCLUSIONS: Despite extensive efforts (surveys, phone calls, CTG abstraction, publication searches), accurate accrual data remained inaccessible for 60% of the RCC trial cohort. While CTG reports trial results, ongoing accrual data are also critically needed. Poor access to accrual data will continue to limit attempts to develop a national summary of clinical trials metrics and to optimize the cancer clinical research portfolio.

Project description:IntroductionTreatment options and decisions are often based on the results of clinical trials. We have evaluated the public availability of results from completed, registered phase III clinical trials on diabetic nephropathy and current treatment options.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional analysis in which STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology criteria were applied for design and analysis. In June 2017, 34 completed phase III clinical trials on diabetic nephropathy in the ClinicalTrials. gov registry were identified and matched to publications in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry and to those in the PubMed and Google Scholar databases. If no publication was identified, the principal investigator was contacted. The ratio of published and non-published studies was calculated. Various parameters, including study design, drugs, and comparators provided, were analyzed.ResultsDrugs/supplements belonged to 26 different categories of medications, with the main ones being angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-II receptors blockers, and dipeptidyl-peptidase-4-inhibitors. Among the trials completed before 2016 (n = 32), 22 (69%) were published, and ten (31%) remained unpublished. Thus, data on 11 different interventions and more than 1000 patients remained undisclosed. Mean time to publication was 26.5 months, which is longer than the time constrictions imposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act. Most trials only showed weak effects on micro- and macroalbuminuria, with an absolute risk reduction of 1.0 and 0.3%, respectively, and the number needed to treat varied between 91 and 333, without any relevant effect on end-stage-renal disease by intensive glucose-lowering treatment. Comparison of the results, however, was difficult since study design, interventions, and the renal outcome parameters vary greatly between the studies.ConclusionDespite the financial and human resources involved and the relevance for therapeutic guidelines and clinical decisions, about one-third of phase III clinical trials on diabetic nephropathy remain unpublished. Interventions used in published trials showed a low efficacy on renal outcome.FundingDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG): SFB 1118.

Project description:BackgroundThe reporting of randomised controlled non-inferiority (NI) drug trials is poor with less than 50% of published trials reporting a justification of the NI margin. This is despite the introduction of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension on reporting of NI and equivalence in randomised trials. It is critical to set the appropriate NI margin as this choice dictates the conclusions of the trial. Methods to estimate the margin are heterogeneous but generally based on clinical judgement and statistical reasoning, and hence tailored to each clinical situation. Yet an appraisal of NI in clinical trials has not been undertaken. Therefore the aim of this systematic review is to assess the reporting and methodological quality of defining the NI margin. Surgical NI trials have been chosen as our prototype to assess this.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review of published randomised controlled trials in abdominal surgery that use an NI design. Key eligibility criteria will be: surgical intervention in at least one trial arm; adult patients and a sample size of 100 or more. Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched from inception until the date of the search. Identified studies will be assessed for reporting according to the CONSORT recommendations. The outcomes are the description of the methods for defining the NI margin, and the robustness of the NI margin estimation. The latter will be based on simulations using alternative assumptions for model parameters. The results of the simulation will be compared with the trial authors' conclusions.Anticipated resultsThe review will describe and appraise the design and reporting of surgical NI trials including shortcomings thereof and allow a comparison with pharmaceutical trials. These findings will inform researchers on the appropriate design and pitfalls when conducting surgical randomised controlled trials with an NI design and promote thorough and standardised reporting of study findings.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required and any changes to the protocol will be communicated via the registration platform. The final manuscript will be submitted to a journal for publication and the findings will be disseminated through conference presentations to inform researchers and the public.

Project description:Background/aims Non-inferiority trials with time-to-event outcomes are becoming increasingly common. Designing non-inferiority trials is challenging, in particular, they require very large sample sizes. We hypothesized that the difference in restricted mean survival time, an alternative to the hazard ratio, could lead to smaller required sample sizes. Methods We show how to convert a margin for the hazard ratio into a margin for the difference in restricted mean survival time and how to calculate the required sample size under a Weibull survival distribution. We systematically selected non-inferiority trials published between 2013 and 2016 in seven major journals. Based on the protocol and article of each trial, we determined the clinically relevant time horizon of interest. We reconstructed individual patient data for the primary outcome and fit a Weibull distribution to the comparator arm. We converted the margin for the hazard ratio into the margin for the difference in restricted mean survival time. We tested for non-inferiority using the difference in restricted mean survival time and hazard ratio. We determined the required sample size based on both measures, using the type I error risk and power from the original trial design. Results We included 35 trials. We found evidence of non-proportional hazards in five (14%) trials. The hazard ratio and the difference in restricted mean survival time were consistent regarding non-inferiority testing, except in one trial where the difference in restricted mean survival time led to evidence of non-inferiority while the hazard ratio did not. The median hazard ratio margin was 1.43 (Q1-Q3, 1.29-1.75). The median of the corresponding margins for the difference in restricted mean survival time was -21 days (Q1-Q3, -36 to -8) for a median time horizon of 2.0 years (Q1-Q3, 1-3 years). The required sample size according to the difference in restricted mean survival time was smaller in 71% of trials, with a median relative decrease of 8.5% (Q1-Q3, 0.4%-38.0%). Across all 35 trials, about 25,000 participants would have been spared from enrollment using the difference in restricted mean survival time compared to hazard ratio for trial design. Conclusion The margins for the hazard ratio may seem large but translate to relatively small differences in restricted mean survival time. The difference in restricted mean survival time offers meaningful interpretation and can result in considerable reductions in sample size. Restricted mean survival time-based measures should be considered more widely in the design and analysis of non-inferiority trials with time-to-event outcomes.

Project description:ObjectivesTo characterise current COVID-19-related research activities.DesignCross-sectional analysis.SettingClinical trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov testing interventions relevant to COVID-19.Data sourcesClinicalTrials.gov was searched for COVID-19 and related terms to identify trials registered between 1 December 2019 and 1 May 2020 that test interventions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.Main outcome measuresWe classified trials according to intervention type, and report key trial characteristics including recruitment status, location, funder type, target enrolment number, intervention model (single group, randomised or sequential assignment) and projected completion date.ResultsOf the 630 identified clinical trials related to COVID-19, 509 (81%) involved the study of drugs or biological agents. Of these trials of drugs and biologics, 305 (60%) use an open-label design, 43 (8%) are single blinded (participant only) and 161 (32%) are double blinded (participant and investigator). 94 (18%) of the drug/biological trials are non-randomised. Either hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine is administered as part of the study protocol in 152 (30%) of the drug/biological trials. The total planned enrolment for these hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine trials is over 200 000 participants, which represents 65% of the total planned enrolment for all registered trials of drugs or biologics. There are also at least 25 registered trials of azithromycin (n=53), convalescent plasma (n=38), lopinavir/ritonavir (n=30), stem cell treatments (n=29) and tocilizumab (n=25). 142 trials were registered in the first 3 months of 2020, and 488 trials were registered between 1 April and 1 May 2020.ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate a robust research response to the COVID-19 pandemic, though many of the currently planned and ongoing trials focus on a small number of potential therapies, and many also lack essential design features and power necessary to provide accurate treatment effect estimates.

Dataset Information

Surgical clinical trials with non-inferiority design: a cross-sectional bibliometric analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Surgical clinical trials with non-inferiority design: a cross-sectional bibliometric analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets