Evaluation of Planned Subgroup Analysis in Protocols of Randomized Clinical Trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Taji Heravi A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8552052 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Evaluation of Planned Subgroup Analysis in Protocols of Randomized Clinical Trials.
Taji Heravi Ala A Gryaznov Dmitry D Schandelmaier Stefan S Kasenda Benjamin B Briel Matthias M
JAMA network open 20211001 10
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceMany published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) make claims for subgroup differences.ObjectiveTo evaluate how often subgroup claims reported in the abstracts of RCTs are actually supported by statistical evidence (P < .05 from an interaction test) and corroborated by subsequent RCTs and meta-analyses.Data sourcesThis meta-epidemiological survey examines data sets of trials with at least 1 subgroup claim, including Subgroup Analysis of Trials Is Rarely Easy (SATIRE) articles and Discontinuation of Randomized Trials (DISCO) articles. We used Scopus (updated July 2016) to search for English-language articles citing each of the eligible index articles with at least 1 subgroup finding in the abstract.Study selectionArticles with a subgroup claim in the abstract with or without evidence of statistical heterogeneity (P < .05 from an interaction test) in the text and articles attempting to corroborate the subgroup findings.Data extraction and synthesisStudy characteristics of trials with at least 1 subgroup claim in the abstract were recorded. Two reviewers extracted the data necessary to calculate subgroup-level effect sizes, standard errors, and the P values for interaction. For individual RCTs and meta-analyses that attempted to corroborate the subgroup findings from the index articles, trial characteristics were extracted. Cochran Q test was used to reevaluate heterogeneity with the data from all available trials.Main outcomes and measuresThe number of subgroup claims in the abstracts of RCTs, the number of subgroup claims in the abstracts of RCTs with statistical support (subgroup findings), and the number of subgroup findings corroborated by subsequent RCTs and meta-analyses.ResultsSixty-four eligible RCTs made a total of 117 subgroup claims in their abstracts. Of these 117 claims, only 46 (39.3%) in 33 articles had evidence of statistically significant heterogeneity from a test for interaction. In addition, out of these 46 subgroup findings, only 16 (34.8%) ensured balance between randomization groups within the subgroups (eg, through stratified randomization), 13 (28.3%) entailed a prespecified subgroup analysis, and 1 (2.2%) was adjusted for multiple testing. Only 5 (10.9%) of the 46 subgroup findings had at least 1 subsequent pure corroboration attempt by a meta-analysis or an RCT. In all 5 cases, the corroboration attempts found no evidence of a statistically significant subgroup effect. In addition, all effect sizes from meta-analyses were attenuated toward the null.Conclusions and relevanceA minority of subgroup claims made in the abstracts of RCTs are supported by their own data (ie, a significant interaction effect). For those that have statistical support (P < .05 from an interaction test), most fail to meet other best practices for subgroup tests, including prespecification, stratified randomization, and adjustment for multiple testing. Attempts to corroborate statistically significant subgroup differences are rare; when done, the initially observed subgroup differences are not reproduced.
| S-EPMC6657347 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Access to randomized clinical trial (RCT) protocols is necessary for the interpretation and reproducibility of the study results, but protocol availability has been lacking. We determined the prevalence of protocol availability for all published cancer RCTs in January 2020. We found that only 36.1% (48/133) of RCTs had an accessible protocol and only 11.3% of RCTs (15/133) had a publicly accessible protocol that was not behind a paywall. Only 18.0% (24/133) of RCTs were published in conjunction with the protocol on the journal website. In conclusion, few cancer RCTs have an accessible research protocol. Journals should require publication of RCT protocols along with manuscripts to improve research transparency.
| S-EPMC8237482 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInadequate and poor quality outcome reporting in clinical trials is a well-documented problem that impedes the ability of researchers to evaluate, replicate, synthesize, and build upon study findings and impacts evidence-based decision-making by patients, clinicians, and policy-makers. To facilitate harmonized and transparent reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and published reports, the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) is being developed. The final product will provide unique InsPECT extensions to the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines.MethodsThe InsPECT SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions will be developed in accordance with the methodological framework created by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Quality) Network for reporting guideline development. Development will consist of (1) the creation of an initial list of candidate outcome reporting items synthesized from expert consultations and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting outcomes in trial protocols and reports; (2) a three-round international Delphi study to identify additional candidate items and assess candidate item importance on a 9-point Likert scale, completed by stakeholders such as trial report and protocol authors, systematic review authors, biostatisticians and epidemiologists, reporting guideline developers, clinicians, journal editors, and research ethics board representatives; and (3) an in-person expert consensus meeting to finalize the set of essential outcome reporting items for trial protocols and reports, respectively. The consensus meeting discussions will be independently facilitated and informed by the empirical evidence identified in the primary literature and through the opinions (aggregate rankings and comments) collected via the Delphi study. An integrated knowledge translation approach will be used throughout InsPECT development to facilitate implementation and dissemination, in addition to standard post-development activities.DiscussionInsPECT will provide evidence-informed and consensus-based standards focused on outcome reporting in clinical trials that can be applied across diverse disease areas, study populations, and outcomes. InsPECT will support the standardization of trial outcome reporting, which will maximize trial usability, reduce bias, foster trial replication, improve trial design and execution, and ultimately reduce research waste and help improve patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC6404348 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSaline (0.9% sodium chloride), the fluid most commonly used to treat diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), can cause hyperchloremic metabolic acidosis. Balanced crystalloids, an alternative class of fluids for volume expansion, do not cause acidosis and, therefore, may lead to faster resolution of DKA than saline.ObjectiveTo compare the clinical effects of balanced crystalloids with the clinical effects of saline for the acute treatment of adults with DKA.Design, setting, and participantsThis study was a subgroup analysis of adults with DKA in 2 previously reported companion trials-Saline Against Lactated Ringer's or Plasma-Lyte in the Emergency Department (SALT-ED) and the Isotonic Solutions and Major Adverse Renal Events Trial (SMART). These trials, conducted between January 2016 and March 2017 in an academic medical center in the US, were pragmatic, multiple-crossover, cluster, randomized clinical trials comparing balanced crystalloids vs saline in emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) patients. This study included adults who presented to the ED with DKA, defined as a clinical diagnosis of DKA, plasma glucose greater than 250 mg/dL, plasma bicarbonate less than or equal to 18 mmol/L, and anion gap greater than 10 mmol/L. Data analysis was performed from January to April 2020.InterventionsBalanced crystalloids (clinician's choice of Ringer lactate solution or Plasma-Lyte A solution) vs saline for fluid administration in the ED and ICU according to the same cluster-randomized multiple-crossover schedule.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was time between ED presentation and DKA resolution, as defined by American Diabetes Association criteria. The secondary outcome was time between initiation and discontinuation of continuous insulin infusion.ResultsAmong 172 adults included in this secondary analysis of cluster trials, 94 were assigned to balanced crystalloids and 78 to saline. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 29 (24-45) years, and 90 (52.3%) were women. The median (IQR) volume of isotonic fluid administered in the ED and ICU was 4478 (3000-6372) mL. Cumulative incidence analysis revealed shorter time to DKA resolution in the balanced crystalloids group (median time to resolution: 13.0 hours; IQR: 9.5-18.8 hours) than the saline group (median: 16.9 hours; IQR: 11.9-34.5 hours) (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.68; 95% CI, 1.18-2.38; P = .004). Cumulative incidence analysis also revealed shorter time to insulin infusion discontinuation in the balanced crystalloids group (median: 9.8 hours; IQR: 5.1-17.0 hours) than the saline group (median: 13.4 hours; IQR: 11.0-17.9 hours) (aHR = 1.45; 95% CI, 1.03-2.03; P = .03).Conclusions and relevanceIn this secondary analysis of 2 cluster randomized clinical trials, compared with saline, treatment with balanced crystalloids resulted in more rapid resolution of DKA, suggesting that balanced crystalloids may be preferred over saline for acute management of adults with DKA.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02614040; NCT02444988.
| S-EPMC7670314 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Randomized clinical trials are considered the milestones of clinical research in oncology, and guided the development and approval of new compounds so far. In the last few years, however, molecular and genomic profiling led to a change of paradigm in therapeutic algorithms of many cancer types, with the spread of different biomarker-driven therapies (or targeted therapies). This scenario of "personalized medicine" revolutionized therapeutic strategies and the methodology of the supporting clinical research. New clinical trial designs are emerging to answer to the unmet clinical needs related to the development of these targeted therapies, overcoming the "classical" structure of randomized studies. Innovative trial designs able to evaluate more than one treatment in the same group of patients or many groups of patients with the same treatment (or both) are emerging as a possible future standard in clinical trial methodology. These are identified as "master protocols", and include umbrella, basket and platform trials. In this review, we described the main characteristics of these new trial designs, focusing on the opportunities and limitations of their use in the era of personalized medicine.
| S-EPMC8618758 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Medulloblastoma is a heterogeneous disease with at least four distinct molecular subgroups: wingless (WNT), sonic hedgehog (SHH), Group 3, and Group 4. Recently there has been considerable progress defining the molecular drivers and prognostic factors of each subgroup. However, this information has only rarely been used to stratify risk or impact treatment. The purpose of this work is to provide an update on current clinical trials that provide molecularly stratified treatment paradigms. A search was conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov using the following search terms: "medulloblastoma and subgroup", "medulloblastoma and SHH", "medulloblastoma and WNT", and "medulloblastoma and Non-WNT/Non-SHH". This search resulted in nine distinct clinical trials, five for newly diagnosed medulloblastoma and four for recurrent medulloblastoma. Four trials for newly diagnosed medulloblastoma had a component of craniospinal irradiation reduction for patients with WNT medulloblastoma. Molecularly stratified trials for recurrent medulloblastoma largely focus on SHH. As these trials are ongoing, there are limited data available. A trial in which newly-diagnosed WNT patients received modest chemotherapy without radiation has been closed to accrual due to several early failures. Phase II trials evaluating vismodegib for SHH medulloblastoma in children and adults have been disappointing. In conclusion, although there is an expanding array of clinical trials which incorporate molecular data in prescribing treatment for newly-diagnosed and recurrent medulloblastoma, treatments for these diseases are fairly uniform, with craniospinal radiation dose being the main variable. As the drivers of the distinct subgroups and their associated prognoses are better elucidated, future clinical trials and novel targeted agents are needed to improve outcomes and reduce toxicity where feasible.
| S-EPMC7237968 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical trials are an essential part of evidence-based medicine. Hence, to ensure transparency and accountability in these clinical trials, policies for registration have been framed with emphasis on mandatory submission of trial elements, specifically outcome measures. As these efforts evolve further, we sought to evaluate the current status of endpoint reporting in clinical trial registries.MethodsWe reviewed 71 oncology related randomized controlled trials published in three high impact journals. We compared primary (PEP) and non-primary endpoints (NPEP) between the clinical trial protocols of these trials and their corresponding registration in one of the 14 primary global clinical trial registries. A discrepancy was defined as the non-reporting or absence of an endpoint in either the protocol or registry. The primary endpoint was the rate of discrepancy between secondary endpoints in clinical trial protocols and clinical trial registries.ResultsOf the 71 clinical trials, a discrepancy in PEP was found in only 4 trials (6%). Secondary endpoint (SEP) differences were found in 45 (63%) trials. Among these 45 trials, 36 (80%) had SEPs that were planned in the protocol but not reported in the registry and 19 (42%) had SEPs with endpoints in the registry that were not found in the protocol. The total number of SEPs that were absent from the corresponding registry and protocol were 84 and 29, respectively. Of these endpoints, 48 (57%) and 9 (31%) were included in the published report of these trials.ConclusionAlthough recent regulations and enhanced procedures have improved the number and quality of clinical trial registrations, inconsistencies regarding endpoint reporting still exist. Though further guidelines for the registration of clinical trials will help, greater efforts to provide a correct, easily accessible, and complete representation of planned endpoints are needed.
| S-EPMC6292048 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) has been proposed as an effective alternative method for the adjunctive treatment of all classes of oral infections. The multifactorial nature of its mechanism of action correlates with various influencing factors, involving parameters concerning both the photosensitizer and the light delivery system. This study aims to critically evaluate the recorded parameters of aPDT applications that use lasers as the light source in randomized clinical trials in dentistry. METHODS:PubMed and Cochrane search engines were used to identify human clinical trials of aPDT therapy in dentistry. After applying specific keywords, additional filters, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the initial number of 7744 articles was reduced to 38. RESULTS:Almost one-half of the articles presented incomplete parameters, whilst the others had different protocols, even with the same photosensitizer and for the same field of application. CONCLUSIONS:No safe recommendation for aPDT protocols can be extrapolated for clinical use. Further research investigations should be performed with clear protocols, so that standardization for their potential dental applications can be achieved.
| S-EPMC7558404 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the planning of subgroup analyses in protocols of randomised controlled trials and the agreement with corresponding full journal publications.DesignCohort of protocols of randomised controlled trial and subsequent full journal publications.SettingSix research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada.Data sources894 protocols of randomised controlled trial involving patients approved by participating research ethics committees between 2000 and 2003 and 515 subsequent full journal publications.ResultsOf 894 protocols of randomised controlled trials, 252 (28.2%) included one or more planned subgroup analyses. Of those, 17 (6.7%) provided a clear hypothesis for at least one subgroup analysis, 10 (4.0%) anticipated the direction of a subgroup effect, and 87 (34.5%) planned a statistical test for interaction. Industry sponsored trials more often planned subgroup analyses compared with investigator sponsored trials (195/551 (35.4%) v 57/343 (16.6%), P<0.001). Of 515 identified journal publications, 246 (47.8%) reported at least one subgroup analysis. In 81 (32.9%) of the 246 publications reporting subgroup analyses, authors stated that subgroup analyses were prespecified, but this was not supported by 28 (34.6%) corresponding protocols. In 86 publications, authors claimed a subgroup effect, but only 36 (41.9%) corresponding protocols reported a planned subgroup analysis.ConclusionsSubgroup analyses are insufficiently described in the protocols of randomised controlled trials submitted to research ethics committees, and investigators rarely specify the anticipated direction of subgroup effects. More than one third of statements in publications of randomised controlled trials about subgroup prespecification had no documentation in the corresponding protocols. Definitive judgments regarding credibility of claimed subgroup effects are not possible without access to protocols and analysis plans of randomised controlled trials.
| S-EPMC4100616 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Pulmonary hypertension (PH) treatment decisions are driven by the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Subgroup analyses are often performed to assess whether the intervention effect will change due to the patient's characteristics, thus allowing for individualized decisions. This review aimed to evaluate the appropriateness and interpretation of subgroup analyses performed in PH-specific therapy RCTs published between 2000 and 2020. Claims of subgroup effects were evaluated with prespecified criteria. Overall, 30 RCTs were included. Subgroup analyses presented: a high number of subgroup analyses reported, lack of prespecification, and lack of interaction tests. The trial protocol was not available for most RCTs; significant differences were found in those articles that published the protocol. Authors reported 13 claims of subgroup effect, with 12 claims meeting four or fewer of Sun's criteria. Even when most RCTs were generally at low risk of bias and were published in high-impact journals, the credibility and general quality of subgroup analyses and subgroup claims were low due to methodological flaws. Clinicians should be skeptical of claims of subgroup effects and interpret subgroup analyses with caution, as due to their poor quality, these analyses may not serve as guidance for personalized care.
| S-EPMC9224970 | biostudies-literature