A K Krezel1, R E Hogg1, S Krezel2, R Fallis3, A Azuara-Blanco1. 1. Centre for Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK. 2. Former student of Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK. 3. Medical Library, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The selection of suitable outcomes and sample size calculation are critical factors in the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT). The goal of this study was to identify the range of outcomes and information on sample size calculation in RCTs on geographic atrophy (GA). METHODS: We carried out a systematic review of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) RCTs. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, www.controlled-trials.com, and www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Two independent reviewers screened records. One reviewer collected data and the second reviewer appraised 10% of collected data. We scanned references lists of selected papers to include other relevant RCTs. RESULTS: Literature and registry search identified 3816 abstracts of journal articles and 493 records from trial registries. From a total of 177 RCTs on all types of AMD, 23 RCTs on GA were included. Eighty-one clinical outcomes were identified. Visual acuity (VA) was the most frequently used outcome, presented in 18 out of 23 RCTs and followed by the measures of lesion area. For sample size analysis, 8 GA RCTs were included. None of them provided sufficient Information on sample size calculations. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review illustrates a lack of standardisation in terms of outcome reporting in GA trials and issues regarding sample size calculation. These limitations significantly hamper attempts to compare outcomes across studies and also perform meta-analyses.
PURPOSE: The selection of suitable outcomes and sample size calculation are critical factors in the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT). The goal of this study was to identify the range of outcomes and information on sample size calculation in RCTs on geographic atrophy (GA). METHODS: We carried out a systematic review of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) RCTs. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, www.controlled-trials.com, and www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Two independent reviewers screened records. One reviewer collected data and the second reviewer appraised 10% of collected data. We scanned references lists of selected papers to include other relevant RCTs. RESULTS: Literature and registry search identified 3816 abstracts of journal articles and 493 records from trial registries. From a total of 177 RCTs on all types of AMD, 23 RCTs on GA were included. Eighty-one clinical outcomes were identified. Visual acuity (VA) was the most frequently used outcome, presented in 18 out of 23 RCTs and followed by the measures of lesion area. For sample size analysis, 8 GA RCTs were included. None of them provided sufficient Information on sample size calculations. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review illustrates a lack of standardisation in terms of outcome reporting in GA trials and issues regarding sample size calculation. These limitations significantly hamper attempts to compare outcomes across studies and also perform meta-analyses.
Authors: Raul Velez-Montoya; Scott C N Oliver; Jeffrey L Olson; Stuart L Fine; Naresh Mandava; Hugo Quiroz-Mercado Journal: Retina Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Roy W Beck; Maureen G Maguire; Neil M Bressler; Adam R Glassman; Anne S Lindblad; Frederick L Ferris Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Jonathan A Cook; Jennifer Hislop; Temitope E Adewuyi; Kirsten Harrild; Douglas G Altman; Craig R Ramsay; Cynthia Fraser; Brian Buckley; Peter Fayers; Ian Harvey; Andrew H Briggs; John D Norrie; Dean Fergusson; Ian Ford; Luke D Vale Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Paula R Williamson; Douglas G Altman; Jane M Blazeby; Mike Clarke; Declan Devane; Elizabeth Gargon; Peter Tugwell Journal: Trials Date: 2012-08-06 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Mohammad Yazdanie; Jason Alvarez; Elvira Agrón; Wai T Wong; Henry E Wiley; Frederick L Ferris; Emily Y Chew; Catherine Cukras Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 12.079