Literature DB >> 27035689

Brief Report: Staged-informed Consent in the Cohort Multiple Randomized Controlled Trial Design.

Danny A Young-Afat1, Helena A M Verkooijen, Carla H van Gils, Joanne M van der Velden, Johannes P Burbach, Sjoerd G Elias, Jonannes J van Delden, Clare Relton, Marco van Vulpen, Rieke van der Graaf.   

Abstract

The "cohort multiple randomized controlled trial," a new design for pragmatic trials, embeds multiple trials within a cohort. The cohort multiple RCT is an attractive alternative to conventional RCTs in fields where recruitment is slow, multiple new (competing) interventions for the same condition have to be tested, new interventions are highly preferred by patients and doctors, and the risk of disappointment bias, cross-over, and contamination is considerable. To prevent these unwanted effects, the cohort multiple RCT provides information on randomization to the intervention group/arm only, and only after randomization (i.e., prerandomization). To some, especially in a clinical setting, this is not ethically acceptable. In this article, we argue that prerandomization in the cohort multiple randomized controlled trial (cmRCT) can be avoided by adopting a staged-informed consent procedure. In the first stage, at entry into the cohort, all potential participants are asked for their informed consent to participate in a cohort study and broad consent to be either randomly selected to be approached for experimental interventions or to serve as control without further notice during participation in the cohort. In a second stage, at the initiation of an RCT within the cohort, informed consent to receive the intervention is then only sought in those randomly selected for the intervention arm. At the third stage, after completion of each RCT, all cohort participants receive aggregate disclosure of trial results. This staged-informed consent procedure avoids prerandomization in cmRCT and aims to keep participants actively engaged in the research process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27035689     DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000435

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Epidemiology        ISSN: 1044-3983            Impact factor:   4.822


  24 in total

1.  Just-in-time consent: The ethical case for an alternative to traditional informed consent in randomized trials comparing an experimental intervention with usual care.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Danny A Young-Afat; Behfar Ehdaie; Scott Yh Kim
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2017-12-11       Impact factor: 2.486

2.  Ethics and practice of Trials within Cohorts: An emerging pragmatic trial design.

Authors:  Scott Yh Kim; James Flory; Clare Relton
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2017-12-11       Impact factor: 2.486

Review 3.  Proposals to Conduct Randomized Controlled Trials Without Informed Consent: a Narrative Review.

Authors:  James H Flory; Alvin I Mushlin; Zachary I Goodman
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-07-06       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Prospective bladder cancer infrastructure for experimental and observational research on bladder cancer: study protocol for the 'trials within cohorts' study ProBCI.

Authors:  Anke Richters; Richard P Meijer; Niven Mehra; Joost L Boormans; Antoine G van der Heijden; Michiel S van der Heijden; Lambertus A Kiemeney; Katja K Aben
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Comparing conVEntional RadioTherapy with stereotactIC body radiotherapy in patients with spinAL metastases: study protocol for an randomized controlled trial following the cohort multiple randomized controlled trial design.

Authors:  Joanne M van der Velden; Helena M Verkooijen; Enrica Seravalli; Jochem Hes; A Sophie Gerlich; Nicolien Kasperts; Wietse S C Eppinga; Jorrit-Jan Verlaan; Marco van Vulpen
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2016-11-21       Impact factor: 4.430

6.  Commentary: considerations for using the 'Trials within Cohorts' design in a clinical trial of an investigational medicinal product.

Authors:  Anna C Bibby; David J Torgerson; Samantha Leach; Helen Lewis-White; Nick A Maskell
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2018-01-08       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  The cohort multiple randomized controlled trial design was found to be highly susceptible to low statistical power and internal validity biases.

Authors:  David Reeves; Kelly Howells; Mark Sidaway; Amy Blakemore; Mark Hann; Maria Panagioti; Peter Bower
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2017-12-19       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  Lifestyle modifications for nonalcohol-related fatty liver disease: a network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Elena Buzzetti; Audrey Linden; Lawrence Mj Best; Angela M Madden; Danielle Roberts; Thomas J G Chase; Suzanne C Freeman; Nicola J Cooper; Alex J Sutton; Dominic Fritche; Elisabeth Jane Milne; Kathy Wright; Chavdar S Pavlov; Brian R Davidson; Emmanuel Tsochatzis; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-06-11

9.  Nutritional supplementation for nonalcohol-related fatty liver disease: a network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Oluyemi Komolafe; Elena Buzzetti; Audrey Linden; Lawrence Mj Best; Angela M Madden; Danielle Roberts; Thomas Jg Chase; Dominic Fritche; Suzanne C Freeman; Nicola J Cooper; Alex J Sutton; Elisabeth Jane Milne; Kathy Wright; Chavdar S Pavlov; Brian R Davidson; Emmanuel Tsochatzis; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-07-19

10.  The effects of exercise on the quality of life of patients with breast cancer (the UMBRELLA Fit study): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Roxanne Gal; Evelyn M Monninkhof; Rolf H H Groenwold; Carla H van Gils; Desiree H J G van den Bongard; Petra H M Peeters; Helena M Verkooijen; Anne M May
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-10-27       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.