A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Pilot Trial of Individualized Homeopathic Medicines for Cutaneous Warts

Homeopathy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samit Dey ◽  
Shifa Hashmi ◽  
Sangita Saha ◽  
Mahakas Mandal ◽  
Abdur Rahaman Shaikh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Pilot Trial ◽  
Attrition Rate ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Practice Research ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Definitive Trial ◽  
Cutaneous Warts

Abstract Background Though frequently used in practice, research studies have shown inconclusive benefits of homeopathy in the treatment of warts. We aimed to assess the feasibility of a future definitive trial, with preliminary assessment of differences between effects of individualized homeopathic (IH) medicines and placebos in treatment of cutaneous warts. Methods A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (n = 60) was conducted at the dermatology outpatient department of D.N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, West Bengal. Patients were randomized to receive either IH (n = 30) or identical-looking placebo (n = 30). Primary outcome measures were numbers and sizes of the warts; secondary outcome was the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) questionnaire measured at baseline, and every month up to 3 months. Group differences and effect sizes were calculated on the intention-to-treat sample. Results Attrition rate was 11.6% (IH, 3; placebo, 4). Intra-group changes were significantly greater (all p < 0.05, Friedman tests) in IH than placebo. Inter-group differences were statistically non-significant (all p > 0.05, Mann-Whitney U tests) with small effect sizes—both in the primary outcomes (number of warts after 3 months: IH median [inter-quartile range; IQR] 1 [1, 3] vs. placebo 1 [1, 2]; p = 0.741; size of warts after 3 months: IH 5.6 mm [2.6, 40.2] vs. placebo 6.3 [0.8, 16.7]; p = 0.515) and in the secondary outcomes (DLQI total after 3 months: IH 4.5 [2, 6.2] vs. placebo 4.5 [2.5, 8]; p = 0.935). Thuja occidentalis (28.3%), Natrum muriaticum (10%) and Sulphur (8.3%) were the most frequently prescribed medicines. No harms, homeopathic aggravations, or serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion As regards efficacy, the preliminary study was inconclusive, with a statistically non-significant direction of effect favoring homeopathy. The trial succeeded in showing that an adequately powered definitive trial is both feasible and warranted. Trial Registration CTRI/2019/10/021659; UTN: U1111–1241–7340

scholarly journals Individualized Homeopathic Medicines in Chronic Rhinosinusitis: Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Homeopathy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pankhuri Misra ◽  
Chintamani Nayak ◽  
Abhijit Chattopadhyay ◽  
Tarun Kumar Palit ◽  
Bharti Gupta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Rhinosinusitis ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Attrition Rate ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Medium Effect ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Double Blind

Abstract Background Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a common disorder, with up to an estimated 134 million Indian sufferers, and having significant impact on quality of life (QOL) and health costs. Despite the evidence favoring homeopathy in CRS being inadequate, it is highly popular. This trial attempts to study the efficacy of individualized homeopathy (IH) medicines in comparison with placebo in patients with CRS. Methods A double-blind, randomized (1:1), placebo-controlled, preliminary trial (n = 62) was conducted at the National Institute of Homoeopathy, West Bengal, India. Primary outcome measure was the sino-nasal outcome test-20 (SNOT-20) questionnaire; secondary outcomes were the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire and EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale scores, and five numeric rating scales (0–10) assessing intensity of sneezing, rhinorrhea, post-nasal drip, facial pain/pressure, and disturbance in sense of smell, all measured at baseline and after the 2nd and 4th months of intervention. Group differences and effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated on the intention-to-treat sample. Results Groups were comparable at baseline. Attrition rate was 6.5% (IH: 1, Placebo: 3). Although improvements in both primary and secondary outcome measures were higher in the IH group than placebo, with small to medium effect sizes, the group differences were statistically non-significant (all p > 0.05, unpaired t-tests). Calcarea carbonica, Lycopodium clavatum, Sulphur, Natrum muriaticum and Pulsatilla nigricans were the most frequently prescribed medicines. No harmful or unintended effects, homeopathic aggravations or any serious adverse events were reported from either group. Conclusion There was a small but non-significant direction of effect favoring homeopathy, which ultimately renders the trial as inconclusive. Rigorous trials and independent replications are recommended to arrive at a confirmatory conclusion. [Trial registration: CTRI/2018/03/012557; UTN: U1111–1210–7201].

Efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines in primary dysmenorrhea: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shubhamoy Ghosh ◽  
Rai Khushboo Ravindra ◽  
Amila Modak ◽  
Shukdeb Maiti ◽  
Arunava Nath ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Attrition Rate ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Systematic Research ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind

Abstract Objectives Homeopathic treatment is claimed to be beneficial for primary dysmenorrhoea (PD); still, systematic research evidences remain compromised. This study was undertaken to examine the efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines (IH) against placebo in the treatment of PD. Methods A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at the gynecology outpatient department of Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, West Bengal, India. Patients were randomized to receive either IH (n=64) or identical-looking placebo (n=64). Primary and secondary outcome measures were 0–10 numeric rating scales (NRS) measuring intensity of pain of dysmenorrhea and verbal multidimensional scoring system (VMSS) respectively; all measured at baseline, and every month, up to 3 months. Group differences and effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were calculated on intention-to-treat (ITT) sample. Results Groups were comparable at baseline (all p>0.05). Attrition rate was 10.9% (IH: 7, placebo: 7). Differences between groups in both pain NRS and VMSS favoured IH over placebo at all time points (all p<0.001, unpaired t-tests and two-ways repeated measures analysis of variance) with medium to large effect sizes. Natrum muriaticum and Pulsatilla nigricans (n=20 each; 15.6%) were the most frequently prescribed medicines. No harms, serious adverse events and intercurrent illnesses were recorded in either of the groups. Conclusions Homeopathic medicines acted significantly better than placebo in the treatment of PD. Independent replication is warranted. Trial registration: CTRI/2018/10/016013.

Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of web-based and mobile interventions for common mental health problems in working adults: a multi-arm randomised pilot trial (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcos Economides ◽  
Heather Bolton ◽  
Rhian Male ◽  
Kate Cavanagh
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Pilot Trial ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Study Methods ◽  
Definitive Trial ◽  
Working Adults ◽  
Secondary Outcomes

BACKGROUND There is growing interest in digital platforms as a means of implementing scalable, accessible, and cost-effective mental health interventions in the workplace. However, little is known about the efficacy of such interventions when delivered to employee groups. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a digital mental health platform for the workplace, that incorporates evidence-based practices such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). Three brief, unguided interventions designed to address stress, anxiety, and resilience, respectively, were evaluated. The primary aim was to determine the feasibility of the study methods and interventions in preparation for a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT). METHODS The study employed a fully remote, parallel, multi-arm, external pilot RCT, with three intervention arms and a no-intervention control group. Participants were working adults representative of the general UK population with respect to age, sex, and ethnicity, who were recruited from an online participant platform. Primary outcomes included objective and self-report measures of feasibility, acceptability, engagement, transferability, relevance, and negative effects. Secondary outcomes included four self-report measures of mental health and wellbeing, completed at baseline (t0), post-intervention (t1) and 1-month follow-up (t2). Secondary outcomes were analysed via linear mixed effects models using intention-to-treat principles. Preregistered criteria for progression to a definitive trial were evaluated. RESULTS Data were collected between January to March 2021. A total of 383 working adult participants meeting trial eligibility were randomised, of which 356 (93.0%) were retained at t2. Objective engagement data showed that 67.8% of all participants randomised to an intervention arm completed their intervention. 87.1% of participants reported being “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their intervention, and 87.1% rated the quality of their intervention as “good” or “excellent”. All intervention groups reported significantly greater improvements than the control group on at least one secondary outcome at t1, with between-group Hedge’s g effect sizes for the pooled interventions ranging from 0.25 [95% CI 0.05-0.46] to 0.43 [95% CI 0.23-0.64]. All improvements were maintained at t2. CONCLUSIONS The study methods were feasible and all preregistered criteria for progression to a definitive trial were met. Several minor protocol amendments are noted. Preliminary efficacy findings suggest the study interventions may result in improved mental health outcomes when offered to working adults. CLINICALTRIAL International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 80309011; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN80309011.

Individualized Homeopathic Medicines in the Treatment of Generalized Anxiety Disorder: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Pilot Trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Maneet Parewa ◽  
Avijit Shee Burman ◽  
Arabinda Brahma ◽  
Lex Rutten ◽  
Satarupa Sadhukhan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Generalized Anxiety Disorder ◽  
Pilot Trial ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Generalized Anxiety ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Positive Direction ◽  
Definitive Trial

Introduction: Evidence favoring homeopathy in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) remains scarce. The objective of this pilot trial was to test feasibility of a definitive trial in future. We also experimented whether individualized homeopathic medicines (IH) plus psychological counseling (PC) can produce significantly different effects beyond placebo plus PC in the treatment of GAD. Methods: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel arm, pilot trial was conducted on 62 GAD patients at the National Institute of Homoeopathy, India. GAD-7 questionnaire and Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) were used as the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively, measured at baseline and 3 months. Patients received either IH plus PC (n = 31) or identical-looking placebo plus PC (n = 31). Intention-to-treat sample was analyzed to detect group differences using unpaired t tests. Results: Recruitment and retention rates were 56 and 90%, respectively. Mean age was 31.5 years; 56.5% were male. GAD-7 reductions were non-significantly higher in IH than placebo (p = 0.122). Group differences on HAM-A favored IH significantly (p = 0.018). Effect sizes were small to medium. Calcarea carbonica was the most frequently indicated medicine. No serious adverse events happened. Conclusions: A small but positive direction of anxiolytic effect was observed favoring homeopathy over placebo. A definitive trial appeared feasible in future.

Efficacy of Individualized Homeopathic Medicines in Plantar Fasciitis: Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

Homeopathy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sana Shahid ◽  
Shubhamoy Ghosh ◽  
Ardhendu Shekhar Chakraborty ◽  
Shukdeb Maiti ◽  
Satarupa Sadhukhan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Plantar Fasciitis ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Plantar Fascia ◽  
Convincing Evidence ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Attrition Rate ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind

Abstract Introduction Plantar fasciitis (PF) is a chronic degenerative condition causing marked thickening and fibrosis of the plantar fascia, and collagen necrosis, chondroid metaplasia and calcification. There is little convincing evidence in support of various approaches, including homeopathy, for treating PF. This study was undertaken to examine the efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) compared with placebo in the treatment of PF. Methods A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at the outpatient departments of Mahesh Bhattacharyya Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, West Bengal, India. Patients were randomized to receive either IHMs or identical-looking placebo in the mutual context of conservative non-medicinal management. The Foot Function Index (FFI) questionnaire, as an outcome measure, was administered at baseline, and every month, up to 3 months. Group differences (unpaired t-tests) and effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated on an intention-to-treat sample. The sample was analyzed statistically after adjusting for baseline differences. Results The target sample size was 128; however, only 75 could be enrolled (IHMs: 37; Placebo: 38). Attrition rate was 9.3% (IHMs: 4, Placebo: 3). Differences between groups in total FFI% score favored IHMs against placebo at all the time points, with large effect sizes: month 1 (mean difference, −10.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], −15.7 to −4.2; p = 0.001; d = 0.8); month 2 (mean difference, −14.3; 95% CI, −20.4 to −8.2; p <0.001; d = 1.1); and month 3 (mean difference, −23.3; 95% CI, −30.5 to −16.2; p <0.001; d = 1.5). Similar significant results were also observed on three FFI sub-scales (pain%, disability%, and activity limitation%). Natrum muriaticum (n = 14; 18.7%) and Rhus toxicodendron and Ruta graveolens (n = 11 each; 14.7%) were the most frequently prescribed medicines. No harms, serious adverse events, or intercurrent illnesses were recorded in either of the groups. Conclusion IHMs acted significantly better than placebo in the treatment of PF; however, the trial being underpowered, the results should be interpreted as preliminary only. Independent replications are warranted. Trial registration: CTRI/2018/10/016014.

scholarly journals The Effect of Protein Supplementation versus Carbohydrate Supplementation on Muscle Damage Markers and Soreness Following a 15-km Road Race: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 858
Author(s):  
Dominique S. M. ten Haaf ◽  
Martin A. Flipsen ◽  
Astrid M. H. Horstman ◽  
Hans Timmerman ◽  
Monique A. H. Steegers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Placebo Group ◽  
Protein Intake ◽  
Muscle Soreness ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Protein Supplementation ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Carbohydrate Supplementation ◽  
Protein Group ◽  
Road Race

We assessed whether a protein supplementation protocol could attenuate running-induced muscle soreness and other muscle damage markers compared to iso-caloric placebo supplementation. A double-blind randomized controlled trial was performed among 323 recreational runners (age 44 ± 11 years, 56% men) participating in a 15-km road race. Participants received milk protein or carbohydrate supplementation, for three consecutive days post-race. Habitual protein intake was assessed using 24 h recalls. Race characteristics were determined and muscle soreness was assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory at baseline and 1–3 days post-race. In a subgroup (n = 149) muscle soreness was measured with a strain gauge algometer and creatine kinase (CK) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) concentrations were measured. At baseline, no group-differences were observed for habitual protein intake (protein group: 79.9 ± 26.5 g/d versus placebo group: 82.0 ± 26.8 g/d, p = 0.49) and muscle soreness (protein: 0.45 ± 1.08 versus placebo: 0.44 ± 1.14, p = 0.96). Subjects completed the race with a running speed of 12 ± 2 km/h. With the Intention-to-Treat analysis no between-group differences were observed in reported muscle soreness. With the per-protocol analysis, however, the protein group reported higher muscle soreness 24 h post-race compared to the placebo group (2.96 ± 2.27 versus 2.46 ± 2.38, p = 0.039) and a lower pressure muscle pain threshold in the protein group compared to the placebo group (71.8 ± 30.0 N versus 83.9 ± 27.9 N, p = 0.019). No differences were found in concentrations of CK and LDH post-race between groups. Post-exercise protein supplementation is not more preferable than carbohydrate supplementation to reduce muscle soreness or other damage markers in recreational athletes with mostly a sufficient baseline protein intake running a 15-km road race.

scholarly journals Randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma therapy against standard therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 disease

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Manaf AlQahtani ◽  
Abdulkarim Abdulrahman ◽  
Abdulrahman Almadani ◽  
Salman Yousif Alali ◽  
Alaa Mahmood Al Zamrooni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Standard Therapy ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Pilot Trial ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Plasma Therapy

AbstractConvalescent plasma (CP) therapy in COVID-19 disease may improve clinical outcome in severe disease. This pilot study was undertaken to inform feasibility and safety of further definitive studies. This was a prospective, interventional and randomized open label pilot trial in patients with severe COVID-19. Twenty COVID-19 patients received two 200 ml transfusions of convalescent patient CP over 24-h compared with 20 who received standard of care. The primary outcome was the requirement for ventilation (non-invasive or mechanical ventilation). The secondary outcomes were biochemical parameters and mortality at 28 days. The CP group were a higher risk group with higher ferritin levels (p < 0.05) though respiratory indices did not differ. The primary outcome measure was required in 6 controls and 4 patients on CP (risk ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.22–2.0, p = 0.72); mean time on ventilation (NIV or MV) did not differ. There were no differences in secondary measures at the end of the study. Two patients died in the control and one patient in the CP arm. There were no significant differences in the primary or secondary outcome measures between CP and standard therapy, although a larger definitive study is needed for confirmation. However, the study did show that CP therapy appears to be safe in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypoxia.Clinical trials registration NCT04356534: 22/04/2020.

scholarly journals Methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol in palliative care patients with cancer-related nausea: a randomised, double-blind controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e029942 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet Rea Hardy ◽  
Helen Skerman ◽  
Jennifer Philip ◽  
Phillip Good ◽  
David C Currow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Response To Treatment ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Point Reduction

ObjectivesMethotrimeprazine is commonly used for the management of nausea but never tested formally against other drugs used in this setting. The aim was to demonstrate superior antiemetic efficacy.DesignDouble-blind, randomised, controlled trial of methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol.Setting11 palliative care sites in Australia.ParticipantsParticipants were >18 years, had cancer, an average nausea score of ≥3/10 and able to tolerate oral medications. Ineligible patients had acute nausea related to treatment, nausea for which a specific antiemetic was indicated, were about to undergo a procedure or had received either of the study drugs or a change in glucocorticoid dose within the previous 48 hours.InterventionsBased on previous studies, haloperidol was used as the control. Participants were randomised to encapsulated methotrimeprazine 6·25 mg or haloperidol 1·5 mg one time or two times per day and assessed every 24 hours for 72 hours.Main outcome measuresA ≥two-point reduction in nausea score at 72 hours from baseline. Secondary outcome measures were as follows: complete response at 72 hours (end nausea score less than 3), response at 24 and 48 hours, vomiting episodes, use of rescue antiemetics, harms and global impression of change.ResultsResponse to treatment at 72 hours was 75% (44/59) in the haloperidol (H) arm and 63% (36/57) in the methotrimeprazine (M) arm with no difference between groups (intention-to-treat analysis). Complete response rates were 56% (H) and 51% (M). In theper protocolanalysis, there was no difference in response rates: (85% (44/52) (H) and 74% (36/49) (M). Completeper protocolresponse rates were 64% (H) and 59% (M). Toxicity worse than baseline was minimal with a trend towards greater sedation in the methotrimeprazine arm.ConclusionThis study did not demonstrate any difference in response rate between methotrimeprazine and haloperidol in the control of nausea.Trial registration numberACTRN 12615000177550.

scholarly journals Association between Age, Weight, and Dose and Clinical Response to Probiotics in Children with Acute Gastroenteritis

2020 ◽  
Vol 151 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-72
Author(s):  
David Schnadower ◽  
Robert E Sapien ◽  
T Charles Casper ◽  
Cheryl Vance ◽  
Phillip I Tarr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Gastroenteritis ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Interaction Effects ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Z Score ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Weight Percentile ◽  
Age And Sex

ABSTRACT Background Gastroenteritis is a common and impactful disease in childhood. Probiotics are often used to treat acute gastroenteritis (AGE); however, in a large multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 971 children, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) was no better than placebo in improving patient outcomes. Objectives We sought to determine whether the effect of LGG is associated with age, weight z score and weight percentile adjusted for age and sex, or dose per kilogram administered. Methods This was a preplanned secondary analysis of a multicenter double-blind RCT of LGG 1 × 1010 CFU twice daily for 5 d or placebo in children 3–48 mo of age with AGE. Our primary outcome was moderate to severe gastroenteritis. Secondary outcomes included diarrhea and vomiting frequency and duration, chronic diarrhea, and side effects. We used multivariable linear and nonlinear models testing for interaction effects to assess outcomes by age, weight z score and weight percentile adjusted for age and sex, and dose per kilogram of LGG received. Results A total of 813 children (84%) were included in the analysis; 413 received placebo and 400 LGG. Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups. There were no differential interaction effects across ranges of age (P-interaction = 0.32), adjusted weight z score (P-interaction = 0.43), adjusted weight percentile (P-interaction = 0.45), or dose per kilogram of LGG received (P-interaction = 0.28) for the primary outcome. Whereas we found a statistical association favoring placebo at the extremes of adjusted weight z scores for the number of vomiting episodes (P-interaction = 0.02) and vomiting duration (P-interaction = 0.0475), there were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcome measures (all P-interactions &gt; 0.05). Conclusions LGG does not improve outcomes in children with AGE regardless of the age, adjusted weight z score, and adjusted weight percentile of participants, or the probiotic dose per kilogram received. These results further strengthen the conclusions of low risk of bias clinical trials which demonstrate that LGG provides no clinical benefit in children with AGE. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01773967.

scholarly journals Corrigendum: Nutritional Evaluation and Optimisation in Neonates (NEON) trial of amino acid regimen and intravenous lipid composition in preterm parenteral nutrition: a randomised double-blind controlled trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-82
Author(s):  
Sabita Uthaya ◽  
Xinxue Liu ◽  
Daphne Babalis ◽  
Caroline Dore ◽  
Jane Warwick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Analysis Data ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Correct Treatment ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Made In

Abstract During the uploading of data for submission to the EudraCT results database, a discrepancy was identified. It was noted that the number of deaths per group was not consistent with the number in the final report and trial publication. This discrepancy was found to relate to two randomisation numbers. During the trial, the randomisation database had been held separately from the trial database, with manual transcription of randomisation numbers from the randomisation database to the trial database. Two randomisation numbers had been entered incorrectly into the trial database and, although this was documented at the time, the correction had not been made in the analysis data set. The two infants in question received the correct treatment in accordance with their allocation, but were analysed according to the wrong treatment group. Following the identification of this error, all analyses were repeated. It was confirmed that this error had a negligible impact on the study results. Furthermore, the two infants in question had not been included in the primary and secondary outcome analyses, as one had died and the other had withdrawn prior to the primary end-point assessment, so the key study outcomes remain unchanged. The only changes to the results are in the number of serious adverse events and minor changes to the data in demographics tables mostly affecting decimal points and the CONSORT diagram. Our interpretation of the study results remains unchanged.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document