Journal of clinical epidemiology
-
Review Meta Analysis Comparative Study
Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials show suboptimal validity of surrogate outcomes for overall survival in advanced colorectal cancer.
To quantify and compare the treatment effects on three surrogate end points, progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), and tumor response rate (TR) vs. overall survival (OS) based on a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of drug interventions in advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC). ⋯ None of the end points in this study were found to achieve the level of evidence (ie, mean R(2)trial > 0.60) that has been set to select high or excellent correlation levels by common surrogate evaluation tools. Previous surrogacy relationships observed between PFS and TTP vs. OS in selected settings may not apply across other classes or lines of therapy.
-
Review Comparative Study
Head-to-head randomized trials are mostly industry sponsored and almost always favor the industry sponsor.
To map the current status of head-to-head comparative randomized evidence and to assess whether funding may impact on trial design and results. ⋯ The literature of head-to-head RCTs is dominated by the industry. Industry-sponsored comparative assessments systematically yield favorable results for the sponsors, even more so when noninferiority designs are involved.
-
To systematically review reports that queried abstract authors about reasons for not subsequently publishing abstract results as full-length articles. ⋯ Across medical specialties, the main reasons for not subsequently publishing an abstract in full lie with factors related to the abstract author rather than with journals.
-
To systematically review reports that queried abstract authors about reasons for not subsequently publishing abstract results as full-length articles. ⋯ Across medical specialties, the main reasons for not subsequently publishing an abstract in full lie with factors related to the abstract author rather than with journals.
-
To identify factors associated with the implementability of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and to determine what characteristics improve their uptake. ⋯ Our work represents a comprehensive and interdisciplinary effort toward better understanding, which attributes of guidelines have the potential to improve uptake in clinical practice. We also created codebooks and narratives of key concepts, which can be used to create tools for developing better guidelines to promote better care.