OBJECTIVE: To assess whether publicly funded adult cancer trials satisfy the uncertainty principle, which states that physicians should enroll a patient in a trial only if they are substantially uncertain which of the treatments in the trial is most appropriate for the patient. This principle is violated if trials systematically favour either the experimental or the standard treatment. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of completed cancer trials, with randomisation as the unit of analysis. SETTING: Two cooperative research groups in the United States. STUDIES INCLUDED: 93 phase III randomised trials (103 randomisations) that completed recruitment of patients between 1981 and 1995. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Whether the randomisation favoured the experimental treatment, the standard treatment, or neither treatment; effect size (outcome of the experimental treatment compared with outcome of the standard treatment) for each randomisation. RESULTS: Three randomisations (3%) favoured the standard treatment, 70 (68%) found no significant difference between treatments, and 30 (29%) favoured the experimental treatment. The average effect size was 1.20 (95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.28), reflecting a slight advantage for the experimental treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In cooperative group trials in adults with cancer, there is a measurable average improvement in disease control associated with assignment to the experimental rather than the standard arm. However, the heterogeneity of outcomes and the small magnitude of the advantage suggest that, as a group, these trials satisfy the uncertainty principle.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether publicly funded adult cancer trials satisfy the uncertainty principle, which states that physicians should enroll a patient in a trial only if they are substantially uncertain which of the treatments in the trial is most appropriate for the patient. This principle is violated if trials systematically favour either the experimental or the standard treatment. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of completed cancer trials, with randomisation as the unit of analysis. SETTING: Two cooperative research groups in the United States. STUDIES INCLUDED: 93 phase III randomised trials (103 randomisations) that completed recruitment of patients between 1981 and 1995. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Whether the randomisation favoured the experimental treatment, the standard treatment, or neither treatment; effect size (outcome of the experimental treatment compared with outcome of the standard treatment) for each randomisation. RESULTS: Three randomisations (3%) favoured the standard treatment, 70 (68%) found no significant difference between treatments, and 30 (29%) favoured the experimental treatment. The average effect size was 1.20 (95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.28), reflecting a slight advantage for the experimental treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In cooperative group trials in adults with cancer, there is a measurable average improvement in disease control associated with assignment to the experimental rather than the standard arm. However, the heterogeneity of outcomes and the small magnitude of the advantage suggest that, as a group, these trials satisfy the uncertainty principle.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach
Authors: C P Hunter; R W Frelick; A R Feldman; A R Bavier; W H Dunlap; L Ford; D Henson; D Macfarlane; C R Smart; R Yancik Journal: Cancer Treat Rep Date: 1987-06
Authors: Benjamin Djulbegovic; Ambuj Kumar; Heloisa P Soares; Iztok Hozo; Gerold Bepler; Mike Clarke; Charles L Bennett Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2008-03-24
Authors: Matthias Briel; Melanie Lane; Victor M Montori; Dirk Bassler; Paul Glasziou; German Malaga; Elie A Akl; Ignacio Ferreira-Gonzalez; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Gerard Urrutia; Regina Kunz; Carolina Ruiz Culebro; Suzana Alves da Silva; David N Flynn; Mohamed B Elamin; Brigitte Strahm; M Hassan Murad; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Neill K J Adhikari; Edward J Mills; Femida Gwadry-Sridhar; Haresh Kirpalani; Heloisa P Soares; Nisrin O Abu Elnour; John J You; Paul J Karanicolas; Heiner C Bucher; Julianna F Lampropulos; Alain J Nordmann; Karen E A Burns; Sohail M Mulla; Heike Raatz; Amit Sood; Jagdeep Kaur; Clare R Bankhead; Rebecca J Mullan; Kara A Nerenberg; Per Olav Vandvik; Fernando Coto-Yglesias; Holger Schünemann; Fabio Tuche; Pedro Paulo M Chrispim; Deborah J Cook; Kristina Lutz; Christine M Ribic; Noah Vale; Patricia J Erwin; Rafael Perera; Qi Zhou; Diane Heels-Ansdell; Tim Ramsay; Stephen D Walter; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: Trials Date: 2009-07-06 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Benjamin Djulbegovic; Ambuj Kumar; Paul P Glasziou; Rafael Perera; Tea Reljic; Louise Dent; James Raftery; Marit Johansen; Gian Luca Di Tanna; Branko Miladinovic; Heloisa P Soares; Gunn E Vist; Iain Chalmers Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-10-17