Trials
-
Subgroup analyses in randomized trials examine whether effects of interventions differ between subgroups of study populations according to characteristics of patients or interventions. However, findings from subgroup analyses may be misleading, potentially resulting in suboptimal clinical and health decision making. Few studies have investigated the reporting and conduct of subgroup analyses and a number of important questions remain unanswered. The objectives of this study are: 1) to describe the reporting of subgroup analyses and claims of subgroup effects in randomized controlled trials, 2) to assess study characteristics associated with reporting of subgroup analyses and with claims of subgroup effects, and 3) to examine the analysis, and interpretation of subgroup effects for each study's primary outcome. ⋯ A clear understanding of subgroup analyses, as currently conducted and reported in published randomized controlled trials, will reveal both strengths and weaknesses of this practice. Our findings will contribute to a set of recommendations to optimize the conduct and reporting of subgroup analyses, and claim and interpretation of subgroup effects in randomized trials.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study
The second Symptom Management Research Trial in Oncology (SMaRT Oncology-2): a randomised trial to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding a complex intervention for major depressive disorder to usual care for cancer patients.
Depression Care for People with Cancer is a complex intervention delivered by specially trained cancer nurses, under the supervision of a psychiatrist. It is given as a supplement to the usual care for depression, which patients receive from their general practitioner and cancer service. In a 'proof of concept' trial (Symptom Management Research Trials in Oncology-1) Depression Care for People with Cancer improved depression more than usual care alone. The second Symptom Management Research Trial in Oncology (SMaRT Oncology-2 Trial) will test its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a 'real world' setting. ⋯ A two arm parallel group multi-centre randomised controlled trial. TRIAL PROCEDURES: 500 patients will be recruited through established systematic Symptom Monitoring Services, which screen patients for depression. Patients will have: a diagnosis of cancer (of various types); an estimated life expectancy of twelve months or more and a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder. Patients will be randomised to usual care or usual care plus Depression Care for People with Cancer. Randomisation will be carried out by telephoning a secure computerised central randomisation system or by using a secure web interface. The primary outcome measure is 'treatment response' measured at 24 week outcome data collection. 'Treatment response' will be defined as a reduction of 50% or more in the patient's baseline depression score, measured using the 20-item Symptom Checklist (SCL-20D). Secondary outcomes include remission of major depressive disorder, depression severity and patients' self-rated improvement of depression.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
IVC CLAMP: infrahepatic inferior vena cava clamping during hepatectomy--a randomised controlled trial in an interdisciplinary setting.
Intraoperative haemorrhage is a known predictor for perioperative outcome of patients undergoing hepatic resection. While anaesthesiological lowering of central venous pressure (CVP) by fluid restriction is known to reduce bleeding during transection of the hepatic parenchyma its potential side effects remain poorly investigated. In theory it may have negative effects on kidney function and tissue perfusion and bears the risk to result in severe haemodynamic instability in case of profound intraoperative blood loss. The present randomised controlled trial evaluates efficacy and safety of infrahepatic inferior vena cava (IVC) clamping as an alternative surgical technique to reduce CVP during hepatic resection. ⋯ This is a randomised controlled patient and observer blinded two-group parallel trial designed to assess efficacy and safety of infrahepatic IVC clamping during elective hepatectomy.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
The Toronto prehospital hypertonic resuscitation-head injury and multi organ dysfunction trial (TOPHR HIT)--methods and data collection tools.
Clinical trials evaluating the use of hypertonic saline in the treatment of hypovolemia and head trauma suggest no survival superiority over normal saline; however subgroup analyses suggest there may be a reduction in the inflammatory response and multiorgan failure which may lead to better survival and enhanced neurocognitive function. We describe a feasibility study of randomizing head injured patients to hypertonic saline and dextran vs. normal saline administration in the out of hospital setting. ⋯ We anticipate three aspects of the trial will present challenges to trial success; ethical demands associated with a waiver of consent trial, challenging follow up and comprehensive accurate timely data collection of patient identifiers and clinical or laboratory values. In addition all the data collection tools had to be derived de novo as none existed in the literature.
-
Registration of clinical trials has been introduced largely to reduce bias toward statistically significant results in the trial literature. Doubts remain about whether advance registration alone is an adequate measure to reduce selective publication, selective outcome reporting, and biased design. One of the first areas of medicine in which registration was widely adopted was oncology, although the bulk of registered oncology trials remain unpublished. The net influence of registration on the literature remains untested. This study compares the prevalence of favorable results and conclusions among published reports of registered and unregistered randomized controlled trials of new oncology drugs. ⋯ Trial registration alone, without a requirement for full reporting of research results, does not appear to reduce a bias toward results and conclusions favoring new drugs in the clinical trials literature. Our findings support the inclusion of full results reporting in trial registers, as well as protocols to allow assessment of whether results have been completely reported.