Literature DB >> 6437520

Applying results of randomised trials to clinical practice: impact of losses before randomisation.

M E Charlson, R I Horwitz.   

Abstract

The problem of generalisability in randomised clinical trials was highlighted by studies that entered only 10-14% of screened patients. To determine the magnitude and source of prerandomisation losses in clinical trials a survey was conducted of 41 trials listed in the 1979 inventory of the National Institute of Health. Two thirds of the trials maintained screening logs, but only half maintained any records of the number of patients who met the eligibility criteria but were not entered into the trial. Among 21 trials (51%) that kept data on the number of patients who were eligible but not entered, losses of eligible subjects were attributable to refusals by patients in 25% and refusals by physicians in 29%. Other protocol requirements accounted for the remaining losses of eligible patients. Only a few trials documented the characteristics of patients who were eligible but not entered; in those trials the patients who were not entered were similar demographically but differed clinically from those enrolled. Thus minimising prerandomisation losses of eligible patients requires the use of less restrictive criteria for entering patients. Twenty four of the trials achieved 75% or more of their recruitment goals, eight between 25% and 74%, and six less than 25%. Among trials that screened less than twice their projected sample size, only three out of 13 (23%) achieved 75% or more of their recruitment goal. By contrast, 12 out of 16 trials (75%) that screened more than twice their projected sample size achieved 75% or more of their recruitment goal. Screening large numbers of patients appears to be a pragmatic requirement for success in achieving recruitment goals; therefore, trials should not be criticised as lacking generalisability on that basis alone. The number and characteristics of eligible patients who were not entered, however, were documented by only a few trials; these data are critical in the assessment of generalisability. Additionally, the number of patients with the index disease who did not meet the eligibility criteria should also be documented. Together, these two types of data characterise the population to whom the trial results may be applied.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1984        PMID: 6437520      PMCID: PMC1443545          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.289.6454.1281

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)        ISSN: 0267-0623


  14 in total

1.  Response and follow-up bias in cohort studies.

Authors:  S Greenland
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1977-09       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Coronary bypass surgery weighed in the balance.

Authors:  F D Loop; W L Proudfit; W C Sheldon
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1978-07       Impact factor: 2.778

3.  Sounding Board. Consent as a barrier to research.

Authors:  N Fost
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1979-05-31       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Prophylactic portacaval anastomosis.

Authors:  H O Conn; W W Lindenmuth; C J May; G R Ramsby
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  1972-01       Impact factor: 1.889

5.  A clinical investigation of the portacaval shunt. II. Survival analysis of the prophylactic operation.

Authors:  F C Jackson; E B Perrin; A G Smith; A E Dagradi; H M Nadal
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1968-01       Impact factor: 2.565

6.  Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials.

Authors:  D L Sackett; M Gent
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1979-12-27       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  The Canadian trial of aspirin and sulfinpyrazone in threatened stroke.

Authors:  J P Whisnant
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  1980-01       Impact factor: 4.749

8.  Differences between respondents and non-respondents in a population-based cardiovascular disease study.

Authors:  M H Criqui; E Barrett-Connor; M Austin
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1978-11       Impact factor: 4.897

9.  Characteristics of men most likely to respond to an invitation to be screened.

Authors:  M R Greenlick; J W Bailey; J Wild; J Grover
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1979-10       Impact factor: 9.308

10.  A new design for randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  M Zelen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1979-05-31       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  71 in total

1.  The prevalence and economic impact of low-enrolling clinical studies at an academic medical center.

Authors:  Darlene R Kitterman; Steven K Cheng; David M Dilts; Eric S Orwoll
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 6.893

2.  Implementing point of care "e-referrals" in 137 clinics to increase access to a quit smoking internet system: the Quit-Primo and National Dental PBRN HI-QUIT Studies.

Authors:  Rajani S Sadasivam; Timothy P Hogan; Julie E Volkman; Bridget M Smith; Heather L Coley; Jessica H Williams; Kathryn Delaughter; Midge N Ray; Gregg H Gilbert; Daniel E Ford; Jeroan J Allison; Thomas K Houston
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  X Marks the Spot: Mapping Similarity Between Clinical Trial Cohorts and US Counties.

Authors:  Matthew C Lenert; Dara E Mize; Colin G Walsh
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2018-04-16

Review 4.  Using electronic health records to drive discovery in disease genomics.

Authors:  Isaac S Kohane
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2011-05-18       Impact factor: 53.242

5.  Barriers and enablers to patient recruitment for randomised controlled trials on treatment of chronic wounds: A systematic review.

Authors:  Lyndal Bugeja; Jac Kee Low; Rosemary A McGinnes; Victoria Team; Sankar Sinha; Carolina Weller
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 3.315

6.  SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials.

Authors:  An-Wen Chan; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Peter C Gøtzsche; Douglas G Altman; Howard Mann; Jesse A Berlin; Kay Dickersin; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Kenneth F Schulz; Wendy R Parulekar; Karmela Krleza-Jeric; Andreas Laupacis; David Moher
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-01-08

7.  Repeat emergency medical services use by older adults in a rural community: impact on research methods and study length.

Authors:  Manish N Shah; Peter Swanson; Karthik Rajasekaran; Ann Dozier
Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care       Date:  2009 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 3.077

8.  Comparison of medical abortion with surgical vacuum aspiration: women's preferences and acceptability of treatment.

Authors:  R C Henshaw; S A Naji; I T Russell; A A Templeton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-09-18

9.  Planning a clinical research study.

Authors:  Simon Chan; Anders Jönsson; Mohit Bhandari
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.251

Review 10.  Paying clinicians to join clinical trials: a review of guidelines and interview study of trialists.

Authors:  James Raftery; Christine Kerr; Sheila Hawker; John Powell
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2009-03-10       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.