Dataset Information

Evaluation of biases present in the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design: a simulation study.

ABSTRACT: The cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) design provides an opportunity to incorporate the benefits of randomisation within clinical practice; thus reducing costs, integrating electronic healthcare records, and improving external validity. This study aims to address a key concern of the cmRCT design: refusal to treatment is only present in the intervention arm, and this may lead to bias and reduce statistical power.We used simulation studies to assess the effect of this refusal, both random and related to event risk, on bias of the effect estimator and statistical power. A series of simulations were undertaken that represent a cmRCT trial with time-to-event endpoint. Intention-to-treat (ITT), per protocol (PP), and instrumental variable (IV) analysis methods, two stage predictor substitution and two stage residual inclusion, were compared for various refusal scenarios.We found the IV methods provide a less biased estimator for the causal effect when refusal is present in the intervention arm, with the two stage residual inclusion method performing best with regards to minimum bias and sufficient power. We demonstrate that sample sizes should be adapted based on expected and actual refusal rates in order to be sufficiently powered for IV analysis.We recommend running both an IV and ITT analyses in an individually randomised cmRCT as it is expected that the effect size of interest, or the effect we would observe in clinical practice, would lie somewhere between that estimated with ITT and IV analyses. The optimum (in terms of bias and power) instrumental variable method was the two stage residual inclusion method. We recommend using adaptive power calculations, updating them as refusal rates are collected in the trial recruitment phase in order to be sufficiently powered for IV analysis.

SUBMITTER: Candlish J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5282910 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of biases present in the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design: a simulation study.

Candlish Jane J Pate Alexander A Sperrin Matthew M van Staa Tjeerd T

BMC medical research methodology 20170131 1

<h4>Background</h4>The cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) design provides an opportunity to incorporate the benefits of randomisation within clinical practice; thus reducing costs, integrating electronic healthcare records, and improving external validity. This study aims to address a key concern of the cmRCT design: refusal to treatment is only present in the intervention arm, and this may lead to bias and reduce statistical power.<h4>Methods</h4>We used simulation studies to a ...[more]

PMID: 28143408

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionKnee pain due to osteoarthritis (OA) is a common cause of disability. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence OA guidelines recommend education, exercise and weight loss advice (if overweight) as core interventions before pharmacological adjuncts. However, implementation of these in primary care is often suboptimal. This study aims to develop a complex intervention with non-pharmacological and pharmacological components that can be delivered by nurses. The feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, and feasibility of undertaking a future cohort randomised controlled trial (RCT) will be explored.Methods and analysisIn phase 1, we will develop a training programme for nurses and evaluate the fidelity and acceptability of the non-pharmacological element of the intervention. Fidelity checklists completed by the nurse will be compared with video analysis of the treatment sessions. Patients and nurses will be interviewed to determine the acceptability of the intervention and explore challenges to intervention delivery. The non-pharmacological component will be modified based on the findings. In phase 2, we will assess the feasibility of conducting a cohort RCT comprising both the pharmacological and modified non-pharmacological components. We will compare three groups: group A will receive the non-pharmacological components delivered before pharmacological components; group B will receive pharmacological components followed by the non-pharmacological components; and group C (control arm) will continue to receive usual care. Study outcomes will be collected at three time points: baseline, 13 and 26 weeks after randomisation. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with a sample of participants from each of the two active intervention arms.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol was approved by the East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee (18/EM/0288) and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (protocol v4.0, 10/02/2020). The study will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidance and standards. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed academic journals.Trial registration numberNCT03670706.

Project description:IntroductionPrevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is of key importance in reducing morbidity, disability and mortality worldwide. Observational studies suggest that digital health interventions can be an effective strategy to reduce cardiovascular (CV) risk. However, evidence from large randomised clinical trials is lacking.Methods and analysisThe CV-PREVITAL study is a multicentre, prospective, randomised, controlled, open-label interventional trial designed to compare the effectiveness of an educational and motivational mobile health (mHealth) intervention versus usual care in reducing CV risk. The intervention aims at improving diet, physical activity, sleep quality, psycho-behavioural aspects, as well as promoting smoking cessation and adherence to pharmacological treatment for CV risk factors. The trial aims to enrol approximately 80 000 subjects without overt CVDs referring to general practitioners' offices, community pharmacies or clinics of Scientific Institute for Research, Hospitalization and Health Care (Italian acronym IRCCS) affiliated with the Italian Cardiology Network. All participants are evaluated at baseline and after 12 months to assess the effectiveness of the intervention on short-term endpoints, namely improvement in CV risk score and reduction of major CV risk factors. Beyond the funded life of the study, a long-term (7 years) follow-up is also planned to assess the effectiveness of the intervention on the incidence of major adverse CV events. A series of ancillary studies designed to evaluate the effect of the mHealth intervention on additional risk biomarkers are also performed.Ethics and disseminationThis study received ethics approval from the ethics committee of the coordinating centre (Monzino Cardiology Center; R1256/20-CCM 1319) and from all other relevant IRBs and ethics committees. Findings are disseminated through scientific meetings and peer-reviewed journals and via social media. Partners are informed about the study's course and findings through regular meetings.Trial registration numberNCT05339841.

Project description:Many epidemiological questions concern potential interventions to alter the pathways presumed to mediate an association. For example, we consider a study that investigates the benefit of interventions in young adulthood for ameliorating the poorer mid-life psychosocial outcomes of adolescent self-harmers relative to their healthy peers. Two methodological challenges arise. First, mediation methods have hitherto mostly focused on the elusive task of discovering pathways, rather than on the evaluation of mediator interventions. Second, the complexity of such questions is invariably such that there are no well-defined mediator interventions (i.e. actual treatments, programs, etc.) for which data exist on the relevant populations, outcomes and time-spans of interest. Instead, researchers must rely on exposure (non-intervention) data, that is, on mediator measures such as depression symptoms for which the actual interventions that one might implement to alter them are not well defined. We propose a novel framework that addresses these challenges by defining mediation effects that map to a target trial of hypothetical interventions targeting multiple mediators for which we simulate the effects. Specifically, we specify a target trial addressing three policy-relevant questions, regarding the impacts of hypothetical interventions that would shift the mediators' distributions (separately under various interdependence assumptions, jointly or sequentially) to user-specified distributions that can be emulated with the observed data. We then define novel interventional effects that map to this trial, simulating shifts by setting mediators to random draws from those distributions. We show that estimation using a g-computation method is possible under an expanded set of causal assumptions relative to inference with well-defined interventions, which reflects the lower level of evidence that is expected with ill-defined interventions. Application to the self-harm example in the Victorian Adolescent Health Cohort Study illustrates the value of our proposal for informing the design and evaluation of actual interventions in the future.

Project description:IntroductionInsomnia is a prevalent sleep disorder that causes substantial personal and societal harm. There is evidence that placebo interventions can reduce insomnia symptoms, but this research has involved deceptively administering the placebo under the guise of a real medication (conventional placebo, CP), which has obvious ethical constraints. Open-label placebo (OLP) treatment, in which a placebo is administered with full disclosure that there are no active ingredients, has been proposed as a method of using the placebo effect ethically, but the efficacy and acceptability of OLP for insomnia is currently unknown.Methods and analysisThis study uses a cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design to compare OLP, CP and no treatment for insomnia. Two-hundred and sixty-seven participants with self-reported insomnia symptoms (Insomnia Severity Index, ISI ≥10) will be recruited into an observational study and have their sleep monitored over a 2-week period. Participants will then be randomised to one of three groups: invite to OLP, invite to CP described deceptively as a new pharmacological agent, or no invite/observational control. Those in OLP and CP accepting the invite receive identical placebos for a 2-week treatment period while sleep is monitored in all participants. The primary outcome is ISI at the end of the treatment period. Secondary outcomes include treatment uptake and clinically significant response rates, objective and subjective sleep parameters, fatigue, mood, expectancy, treatment satisfaction and side effects. Predictors of uptake and responses to OLP and CP will be explored.Ethics and disseminationThe trial has been approved by The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee. Written informed consent is obtained from every participant. OLP and CP participants accepting the invite undergo an additional consent process. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed conference proceedings and publications.Trial registration numberACTRN12620001080910.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Appropriate information flow is crucial to the care of patients, particularly at the interface between primary and secondary care. Communication problems can result from inadequate organisation and training, There is a major expectation that information and communication technologies may offer solutions, but little reliable evidence. This paper reports the design and performance of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT), unparalleled in telemedicine research in either scale or range of outcomes. The study investigated the effectiveness and cost implications in rural and inner-city settings of using videoconferencing to perform joint tele-consultations as an alternative to general practitioner referral to the hospital specialist in the outpatient clinic. METHODS:Joint tele-consultation services were established in both the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust in inner London, and the Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals Trust, in Shropshire. All the patients who gave consent to participate were randomised either to joint tele-consultation or to a routine outpatients appointment. The principal outcome measures included the frequency of decision by the specialist to offer a follow-up outpatient appointment, patient satisfaction (Ware Specific Questionnaire), wellbeing (SF12) and enablement (PEI), numbers of tests, investigations, procedures and treatments. RESULTS:A total of 134 general practitioners operating from 29 practices participated in the trial, referring a total of 3170 patients to 20 specialists in ENT medicine, general medicine (including endocrinology, and rheumatology), gastroenterology, orthopaedics, neurology and urology. Of these, 2094 patients consented to participate in the study and were correctly randomised. There was a 91% response rate to the initial assessment questionnaires, and analysis showed equivalence for all key characteristics between the treatment and control groups. CONCLUSION:We have designed and performed a major multi-centre trial of teleconsultations in two contrasting centres. Many problems were overcome to enable the trial to be carried out, with a considerable development and learning phase. A lengthier development phase might have enabled us to improve the patient selection criteria, but there is a window of opportunity for these developments, and we believe that our approach was appropriate, allowing the evaluation of the technology before its widespread implementation.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of biases present in the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design: a simulation study.

Publications

Evaluation of biases present in the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design: a simulation study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets