Dataset Information

A systematic review of techniques and interventions for improving adherence to inclusion and exclusion criteria during enrolment into randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Enrolment of patients into a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in violation of key inclusion or exclusion criteria, may lead to excess avoidable harm. The purpose of this paper was to systematically identify and review techniques and interventions proven to prevent or avoid inappropriate enrolment of patients into RCTs. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Methodology Register, online abstract repositories, and conference websites were searched. Experts were contacted and bibliographies of retrieved papers hand-searched. The search cut-off date was 31 August 2009. RESULTS: No primary publications were found. We identified one study in the grey literature (conference abstracts and presentations) reporting the results of an evaluation of the effectiveness of an intervention designed to prevent or avoid inappropriate enrolment of patients into an RCT. In the context of a multicentre trial, use of a dummy enrolment run-in phase was shown to reduce enrolment errors significantly (P < 0.001), from 16.1% during the run-in phase to < 1% after trial initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic search yielded only one technique or intervention shown to improve adherence to eligibility criteria during enrolment into RCTs. Given the potential harm involved in recruiting patients into a clinical trial in violation of key eligibility criteria, future research is needed to better inform those conducting clinical trials of how best to prevent enrolment errors.

SUBMITTER: Simpson F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2838880 | biostudies-other | 2010

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of techniques and interventions for improving adherence to inclusion and exclusion criteria during enrolment into randomised controlled trials.

Simpson Fiona F Sweetman Elizabeth A EA Doig Gordon S GS

Trials 20100223

<h4>Background</h4>Enrolment of patients into a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in violation of key inclusion or exclusion criteria, may lead to excess avoidable harm. The purpose of this paper was to systematically identify and review techniques and interventions proven to prevent or avoid inappropriate enrolment of patients into RCTs.<h4>Methods</h4>EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Methodology Register, online abstract repositories, and conference websites w ...[more]

PMID: 20178571

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Low back pain is a common health complaint resulting in substantial economic burden. Each year, upwards of 20 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions for non-specific low back pain are published. Use of the term non-specific low back pain has been criticised on the grounds of encouraging heterogeneity and hampering interpretation of findings due to possible heterogeneous causes, challenging meta-analyses. We explored selection criteria used in trials of treatments for nsLBP. METHODS:A systematic review of English-language reports of RCTs in nsLBP population samples, published between 2006 and 2012, identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases, using a mixed-methods approach to analysis. Study inclusion and exclusion criteria were extracted, thematically categorised, and then descriptive statistics were used to summarise the prevalence by emerging category. RESULTS:We included 168 studies. Two inclusion themes (anatomical area, and symptoms and signs) were identified. Anatomical area was most reported as between costal margins and gluteal folds (n =?8, 5%), while low back pain (n =?150, 89%) with or without referred leg pain (n =?27, 16%) was the most reported symptom. Exclusion criteria comprised 21 themes. Previous or scheduled surgery (n =?84, 50%), pregnancy (n =?81, 48%), malignancy (n =?78, 46%), trauma (n =?63, 37%) and psychological conditions (n =?58, 34%) were the most common. Sub-themes of exclusion criteria mostly related to neurological signs and symptoms: nerve root compromise (n =?44, 26%), neurological signs (n =?34, 20%) or disc herniation (n =?30, 18%). Specific conditions that were most often exclusion criteria were spondylolisthesis (n =?35, 21%), spinal stenosis (n =?31, 18%) or osteoporosis (n =?27, 16%). CONCLUSION:RCTs of interventions for non-specific low back pain have incorporated diverse inclusion and exclusion criteria. Guidance on standardisation of inclusion and exclusion criteria for nsLBP trials will increase clinical homogeneity, facilitating greater interpretation of between-trial comparisons and meta-analyses. We propose a template for reporting inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Project description:Objective: Post-randomisation exclusions in randomised controlled trials are common and may include participants identified as not meeting trial eligibility criteria after randomisation. We report how a decision might be reached and reported on, to include or exclude these participants. We illustrate using a motivating scenario from the BREATHE trial (Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02426112) evaluating azithromycin for the treatment of chronic lung disease in people aged 6-19?years with HIV in Zimbabwe and Malawi.Key points: Including all enrolled and randomised participants in the primary analysis of a trial ensures an unbiased estimate of the intervention effect using intention-to-treat principles, and minimises the effects of confounding through balanced allocation to trial arm. Ineligible participants are sometimes enrolled, due to measurement or human error. Of 347 participants enrolled into the BREATHE trial, 11 (3.2%) were subsequently found to be ineligible based on lung function criteria. We assumed no safety risk of azithromycin treatment; their inclusion in the trial and subsequent analysis of the intervention effect therefore mirrors clinical practice. Senior trial investigators considered diurnal variations in the measurement of lung function, advantages of retaining a higher sample size and advice from the Data Safety and Monitoring Board and Trial Steering Committee, and decided to include these participants in primary analysis. We planned and reported analyses including and excluding these participants, and in our case the interpretation of treatment effect was consistent.Conclusion: The decision, by senior investigators, on whether to exclude enrolled participants, should reflect issues of safety, treatment efficacy, statistical power and measurement error. As long as decisions are made prior to finalising the statistical analysis plan for the trial, the risk of exclusions creating bias should be minimal. The decision taken should be transparently reported and a sensitivity analysis can present the opposite decision.

Project description:Since Food and Drug Administration approval of intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator (tPA) for treatment of acute ischemic stroke in 1996, it has become clear that several criteria used for exclusion from therapy were not based on actual data or operationally defined for use in clinical practice. All eligibility criteria from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) recombinant tPA Stroke Study were adopted within the alteplase package insert as contraindications/warnings. Many clinicians have expressed the need for clarification and better definition of these treatment criteria.A group of investigators who also practice as stroke physicians convened a collaborative endeavor to work toward developing more clinically meaningful and consensus-driven exclusion criteria for intravenous tPA. The first of these exclusion criteria chosen was rapidly improving stroke symptoms (RISS). We reviewed and clarified the historical context and intention with the original investigators, held e-mail discussions, convened an in-person RISS Summit, and obtained the understanding of experienced stroke physicians broadly.Historically, the intent of this exclusion criterion within the NINDS recombinant tPA Stroke Trial was to avoid treatment of transient ischemic attacks-who would have recovered completely without treatment. There was unanimous consensus that, in the absence of other contraindications, patients who experience improvement of any degree, but have a persisting neurological deficit that is potentially disabling, should be treated with intravenous tPA. This statement is supported from the methods established for the original NINDS trial, on the basis of detailed discussions and interviews with the former NINDS trialists. It was agreed that improvement should only be monitored for the extent of time needed to prepare and administer the intravenous tPA bolus/infusion. An explicit operational definition of RISS was developed by consensus to guide future decision making in acute stroke. There was unanimous agreement that all neurological deficits present at the time of the treatment decision should be considered in the context of individual risk and benefit, as well as the patient's baseline functional status.A structured framework and quantitative approach toward defining RISS emerged through expert opinion and consensus. The term, RISS, should be reserved for those who improve to a mild deficit, specifically one which is perceived to be nondisabling. This is recommended to guide decision making on intravenous tPA eligibility going forward, including the design of future studies. An additional study of patients with rapid improvement to nonmild deficits is not justified because these patients should be treated.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of techniques and interventions for improving adherence to inclusion and exclusion criteria during enrolment into randomised controlled trials.

Publications

A systematic review of techniques and interventions for improving adherence to inclusion and exclusion criteria during enrolment into randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets