scholarly journals Treatment success in pragmatic randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded by the UK Health Technology Assessment programme

Trials ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Dent ◽  
James Raftery
BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e029596 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Raftery ◽  
HC Williams ◽  
Aileen Clarke ◽  
Jim Thornton ◽  
John Norrie ◽  
...  

ObjectivesRandomised controlled trials in healthcare increasingly include economic evaluations. Some show small differences which are not statistically significant. Yet these sometimes come to paradoxical conclusions such as: ‘the intervention is not clinically effective’ but ‘is probably cost-effective’. This study aims to quantify the extent of non-significant results and the types of conclusions drawn from them.DesignCross-sectional retrospective analysis of randomised trials published by the UK’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme. We defined as ‘doubly null’ those trials that found non-statistically significant differences in both primary outcome and cost per patient. Paradoxical was defined as concluding in favour of an intervention, usually compared with placebo or usual care. No human participants were involved. Our sample was 226 randomised trial projects published by the Health Technology Assessment programme 2004 to 2017. All are available free online.ResultsThe 226 projects contained 193 trials with a full economic evaluation. Of these 76 (39%) had at least one ‘doubly null’ comparison. These 76 trials contained 94 comparisons. In these 30 (32%) drew economic conclusions in favour of an intervention. Overall report conclusions split roughly equally between those favouring the intervention (14), and those favouring either the control (7) or uncertainty (9).DiscussionTrials with ‘doubly null’ results and paradoxical conclusions are not uncommon. The differences observed in cost and quality-adjustedlife year were small and non-statistically significant. Almost all these trials were also published in leading peer-reviewed journals. Although some guidelines for reporting economic results require cost-effectiveness estimates regardless of statistical significance, the interpretability of paradoxical results has nowhere been addressed.ConclusionsReconsideration is required of the interpretation of cost-effectiveness analyses in randomised controlled trials with ‘doubly null’ results, particularly when economics favours a novel intervention.


BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. l6779 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob Cook ◽  
Johnny Lyon-Maris ◽  
Peter Davidson

The studyChappell LC, Brocklehurst P, Green ME, et al. Planned early delivery or expectant management for late preterm pre-eclampsia (PHOENIX): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2019;394:1181-90.This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (project number 12/25/03).To read the full NIHR Signal, go to: https://discover.dc.nihr.ac.uk/content/signal-000838/mothers-benefit-from-a-planned-earlier-delivery-for-late-pre-eclampsia


BMJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. l1029
Author(s):  
Rob Cook ◽  
Vaughan Thomas ◽  
Rosie Martin

The study FOCUS Trial Collaboration. Effects of fluoxetine on functional outcomes after acute stroke (FOCUS): a pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet 2019;393:256-74. The study was funded by the UK Stroke Association and the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme project number 13/04/30. To read the full NIHR Signal, go to: https://discover.dc.nihr.ac.uk/content/signal-000729/a-commonly-used-antidepressant-doesnt-improve-recovery-after-stroke


BMJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. l5721
Author(s):  
Rob Cook ◽  
Vaughan Thomas ◽  
Rachel Taft

The studyCoomarasamy A, Devall AJ, Cheed V, et al. A randomised trial of progesterone in women with bleeding in early pregnancy N Engl J Med 2019;380:1815-24.This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (project number 12/167/26).To read the full NIHR Signal, go to https://discover.dc.nihr.ac.uk/content/signal-000792/miscarriage-not-prevented-by-routine-use-of-progesterone


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document