Literature DB >> 24346610

Central and statistical data monitoring in the Clinical Randomisation of an Antifibrinolytic in Significant Haemorrhage (CRASH-2) trial.

Phil Edwards1, Haleema Shakur1, Lin Barnetson1, David Prieto1, Stephen Evans2, Ian Roberts1.   

Abstract

Background The purpose of monitoring in clinical trials is to ensure the rights, safety, and well-being of trial patients and the accuracy of the trial data. In the Clinical Randomisation of an Antifibrinolytic in Significant Haemorrhage (CRASH-2) trial, which recruited over 20,000 adult trauma patients worldwide, the nature and extent of monitoring was based on a risk assessment undertaken before recruitment started. Purpose We report the methods used for central and statistical monitoring in the CRASH-2 trial and explain how central monitoring was used to target on-site investigations. Methods To ensure that trial participants met the inclusion criteria, we monitored event rates for the primary (death) and secondary outcomes (blood transfusion given). We monitored four quantitative variables (systolic blood pressure (SBP), heart rate (HR), respiratory rate, and capillary refill time) as indicators of the severity of bleeding. We used the coefficient of variation (CV) to identify sites with too much or too little variability. To ensure the accuracy of the data on side effects, we monitored thromboembolic events at each site. Sites with higher or lower than expected event rates were identified for further evaluation. Results A total of 274 sites recruited patients: 145 sites recruited ≥20; patients, and 52 sites recruited ≥100 patients. Sites with low case fatality and low blood transfusion rates were found to be including patients with relatively mild haemorrhage. One site with a high rate of thromboembolic events was found to be using clinical judgement alone. Measurements of SBP and HR varied by about one-fifth of their average value, and capillary refill time measurements varied by around one-third of their average; between-site variation was lowest for blood pressure. Limitations A comparison of mean and median CV indicated that the distributions are slightly skewed to the right. Our simple approach to calculating 95% confidence intervals for the CV may be improved by using a logarithmic transformation of CV for each variable. Conclusions Central and statistical monitoring of data can be used to monitor clinical trials, particularly large, pragmatic, international trials where 100% on-site monitoring is neither necessary nor cost-effective. In the CRASH-2 trial, re-education about trial protocol and the development of guidance helped resolve the issues identified during monitoring.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24346610     DOI: 10.1177/1740774513514145

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Trials        ISSN: 1740-7745            Impact factor:   2.486


  15 in total

Review 1.  Data-driven risk identification in phase III clinical trials using central statistical monitoring.

Authors:  Catherine Timmermans; David Venet; Tomasz Burzykowski
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-08-02       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Statistical monitoring of data quality and consistency in the Stomach Cancer Adjuvant Multi-institutional Trial Group Trial.

Authors:  Catherine Timmermans; Erik Doffagne; David Venet; Lieven Desmet; Catherine Legrand; Tomasz Burzykowski; Marc Buyse
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  2015-08-23       Impact factor: 7.370

Review 3.  Statistical challenges for central monitoring in clinical trials: a review.

Authors:  Koji Oba
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 4.  The impact of clinical trial monitoring approaches on data integrity and cost--a review of current literature.

Authors:  Rasmus Olsen; Asger Reinstrup Bihlet; Faidra Kalakou; Jeppe Ragnar Andersen
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2016-01-04       Impact factor: 2.953

5.  Data fraud in clinical trials.

Authors:  Stephen L George; Marc Buyse
Journal:  Clin Investig (Lond)       Date:  2015

Review 6.  Improving Study Conduct and Data Quality in Clinical Trials of Chronic Pain Treatments: IMMPACT Recommendations.

Authors:  Jennifer S Gewandter; Robert H Dworkin; Dennis C Turk; Eric G Devine; David Hewitt; Mark P Jensen; Nathaniel P Katz; Amy A Kirkwood; Richard Malamut; John D Markman; Bernard Vrijens; Laurie Burke; James N Campbell; Daniel B Carr; Philip G Conaghan; Penney Cowan; Mittie K Doyle; Robert R Edwards; Scott R Evans; John T Farrar; Roy Freeman; Ian Gilron; Dean Juge; Robert D Kerns; Ernest A Kopecky; Michael P McDermott; Gwendolyn Niebler; Kushang V Patel; Richard Rauck; Andrew S C Rice; Michael Rowbotham; Nelson E Sessler; Lee S Simon; Neil Singla; Vladimir Skljarevski; Tina Tockarshewsky; Geertrui F Vanhove; Ajay D Wasan; James Witter
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2019-12-13       Impact factor: 5.820

7.  Truths, lies, and statistics.

Authors:  Matthew S Thiese; Skyler Walker; Jenna Lindsey
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 2.895

8.  A randomized evaluation of on-site monitoring nested in a multinational randomized trial.

Authors:  Nicole Wyman Engen; Kathy Huppler Hullsiek; Waldo H Belloso; Elizabeth Finley; Fleur Hudson; Eileen Denning; Catherine Carey; Mary Pearson; Jonathan Kagan
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2019-10-24       Impact factor: 2.486

Review 9.  Design and conduct of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials.

Authors:  Nathaniel Katz
Journal:  Pain Rep       Date:  2020-12-18

Review 10.  Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies.

Authors:  Katharina Klatte; Christiane Pauli-Magnus; Sharon B Love; Matthew R Sydes; Pascal Benkert; Nicole Bruni; Hannah Ewald; Patricia Arnaiz Jimenez; Marie Mi Bonde; Matthias Briel
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-12-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.