Andrea Siebenhofer1, Michael A Paulitsch2, Gudrun Pregartner3, Andrea Berghold3, Klaus Jeitler4, Christiane Muth2, Jennifer Engler2. 1. Institute of General Practice, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Frankfurt am Main 60590, Germany; Institute of General Practice and Evidence-based Health Services Research, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 2/9/IV, Graz 8036, Austria. Electronic address: andrea.siebenhofer@medunigraz.at. 2. Institute of General Practice, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Frankfurt am Main 60590, Germany. 3. Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 2, Graz 8036, Austria. 4. Institute of General Practice and Evidence-based Health Services Research, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 2/9/IV, Graz 8036, Austria; Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 2, Graz 8036, Austria.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate how frequently complex interventions are shown to be superior to routine care in general practice-based cluster-randomized controlled studies (c-RCTs) and to explore whether potential differences explain results that come out in favor of a complex intervention. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed an unrestricted search in the Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Included were all c-RCTs that included a patient-relevant primary outcome in a general practice setting with at least 1-year follow-up. We extracted effect sizes, P-values, intracluster correlation coefficients (ICCs), and 22 quality aspects. RESULTS: We identified 29 trials with 99 patient-relevant primary outcomes. After adjustment for multiple testing on a trial level, four outcomes (4%) in four studies (14%) remained statistically significant. Of the 11 studies that reported ICCs, in 8, the ICC was equal to or smaller than the assumed ICC. In 16 of the 17 studies with available sample size calculation, effect sizes were smaller than anticipated. CONCLUSION: More than 85% of the c-RCTs failed to demonstrate a beneficial effect on a predefined primary endpoint. All but one study were overly optimistic with regard to the expected treatment effect. This highlights the importance of weighing up the potential merit of new treatments and planning prospectively, when designing clinical studies in a general practice setting.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate how frequently complex interventions are shown to be superior to routine care in general practice-based cluster-randomized controlled studies (c-RCTs) and to explore whether potential differences explain results that come out in favor of a complex intervention. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed an unrestricted search in the Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Included were all c-RCTs that included a patient-relevant primary outcome in a general practice setting with at least 1-year follow-up. We extracted effect sizes, P-values, intracluster correlation coefficients (ICCs), and 22 quality aspects. RESULTS: We identified 29 trials with 99 patient-relevant primary outcomes. After adjustment for multiple testing on a trial level, four outcomes (4%) in four studies (14%) remained statistically significant. Of the 11 studies that reported ICCs, in 8, the ICC was equal to or smaller than the assumed ICC. In 16 of the 17 studies with available sample size calculation, effect sizes were smaller than anticipated. CONCLUSION: More than 85% of the c-RCTs failed to demonstrate a beneficial effect on a predefined primary endpoint. All but one study were overly optimistic with regard to the expected treatment effect. This highlights the importance of weighing up the potential merit of new treatments and planning prospectively, when designing clinical studies in a general practice setting.
Authors: Lyndsay M O'Hara; Natalia Blanco; Surbhi Leekha; Kristen A Stafford; Gerard P Slobogean; Emilie Ludeman; Anthony D Harris Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Andrea Siebenhofer; Lisa-Rebekka Ulrich; Karola Mergenthal; Andrea Berghold; Gudrun Pregartner; Birgit Kemperdick; Sylvia Schulz-Rothe; Sandra Rauck; Sebastian Harder; Ferdinand Michael Gerlach; Juliana Johanna Petersen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-01-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jacqueline Lagendijk; Amber A Vos; Loes C M Bertens; Semiha Denktas; Gouke J Bonsel; Ewout W Steyerberg; Jasper V Been; Eric A P Steegers Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2018-03-31 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Natalia Blanco; Anthony D Harris; Laurence S Magder; John A Jernigan; Sujan C Reddy; Justin O'Hagan; Kelly M Hatfield; Lisa Pineles; Eli Perencevich; Lyndsay M O'Hara Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-10-02
Authors: Jacqueline Lagendijk; Meertien K Sijpkens; Hiske E Ernst-Smelt; Sarah B Verbiest; Jasper V Been; Eric A P Steegers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-11-20 Impact factor: 3.240