Literature DB >> 11888350

Improving safety reporting from randomised trials.

John P A Ioannidis1, Joseph Lau.   

Abstract

Randomised clinical trials offer a unique opportunity for capturing safety information under a controlled setting that minimises biases in the comparison of different therapeutic options. Nevertheless, empirical evidence across diverse medical fields suggests that the reporting of safety information in clinical trials is largely neglected and receives less attention compared with efficacy outcomes. An analysis of 192 randomised trials has shown that reasons for withdrawals due to toxicity were specified per study arm in only 46% of the trial reports. Adequate reporting of clinical adverse effects and laboratory-determined toxicity occurred in only 39 and 29% of the trials, respectively, even with lenient definitions of what constitutes adequate reporting. The use of standardised scales for adverse effects is a prerequisite for improved reporting on safety in randomised trials. Safety data need to be collected and analysed in a systematic fashion and active surveillance for toxicity during the conduct of a randomised trial is preferable to passive surveillance. Standardised reporting of safety data does not necessarily require extensive space to accomplish. It is essential to provide numerical data per study arm on each type of adverse effect along with a categorisation of the severity of the adverse effects with an emphasis on severe and life-threatening reactions. The severity grading must be referred to well-known standardised scales and new scales need to be carefully defined. Information on withdrawals due to toxicity is also important to report, along with the specific reasons leading to discontinuation. Tabulation of information may be helpful and rare or not previously reported adverse effects should be described in detail. The availability of newer options such as electronic publication, publication of raw databases, large database research, meta-analytic approaches, and prospective registration of clinical trials and of their databases may further improve the safety insights we can gain from randomised clinical trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11888350     DOI: 10.2165/00002018-200225020-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Drug Saf        ISSN: 0114-5916            Impact factor:   5.606


  35 in total

1.  Dose discrepancies between the Physicians' Desk Reference and the medical literature, and their possible role in the high incidence of dose-related adverse drug events.

Authors:  J S Cohen
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2001-04-09

2.  Japanese and American reports of randomized trials: differences in the reporting of adverse effects.

Authors:  K Hayashi; A M Walker
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1996-04

3.  Safety of nifedipine in angina pectoris: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  W B Stason; C H Schmid; D Niedzwiecki; G W Whiting; J F Caubet; D Cory; D Luo; S D Ross; T C Chalmers
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 10.190

4.  Safety outcomes in meta-analyses of phase 2 vs phase 3 randomized trials: Intracranial hemorrhage in trials of bolus thrombolytic therapy.

Authors:  J W Eikelboom; S R Mehta; J Pogue; S Yusuf
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001 Jan 24-31       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 5.  Assessing the safety of drugs in pregnancy: the role of prospective cohort studies.

Authors:  C Irl; J Hasford
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 5.606

6.  Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials.

Authors:  R J Simes
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1986-10       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care.

Authors:  L Bero; D Rennie
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-12-27       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  The evaluation of the safety and tolerability of two formulations of cyclosporine: neoral and sandimmune. A meta-analysis.

Authors:  M B Shah; J E Martin; T J Schroeder; M R First
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  1999-06-15       Impact factor: 4.939

9.  A critical appraisal of toxicity indexes in rheumatology.

Authors:  P M Peloso; J G Wright; C Bombardier
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 4.666

10.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials.

Authors:  D Moher; K F Schulz; D G Altman
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2001-04-20       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  25 in total

1.  Awareness of the side effects of possessed medications in a community setting.

Authors:  Panagiotis N Papanikolaou; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2003-03-07       Impact factor: 2.953

2.  What is the best evidence for determining harms of medical treatment?

Authors:  Jan P Vandenbroucke
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2006-02-28       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Comparison of evidence on harms of medical interventions in randomized and nonrandomized studies.

Authors:  Panagiotis N Papanikolaou; Georgia D Christidi; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2006-02-28       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 4.  Pharmacoeconomics and pharmacoepidemiology: curious bedfellows or a match made in heaven?

Authors:  Andrew H Briggs; Adrian R Levy
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians?

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Regina Kunz; Gunn E Vist; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-05-03

Review 6.  WITHDRAWN: Diclofenac for acute pain in children.

Authors:  Joseph F Standing; Imogen Savage; Deborah Pritchard; Marina Waddington
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-07-02

Review 7.  A pathway to improved prospective observational post-authorization safety studies.

Authors:  Victor A Kiri
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2012-09-01       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 8.  Focus on headache as an adverse reaction to drugs.

Authors:  Anna Ferrari; Luca Spaccapelo; Daniela Gallesi; Emilio Sternieri
Journal:  J Headache Pain       Date:  2009-06-04       Impact factor: 7.277

Review 9.  Reporting of harm in randomized controlled trials evaluating stents for percutaneous coronary intervention.

Authors:  Morgane Ethgen; Isabelle Boutron; Philippe Gabriel Steg; Carine Roy; Philippe Ravaud
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2009-05-04       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Association of trial registration with the results and conclusions of published trials of new oncology drugs.

Authors:  Nicolas Rasmussen; Kirby Lee; Lisa Bero
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2009-12-16       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.