A Guide to Conducting Randomized Clinical Trials in Implantology: Lessons From a Clinical Trial Investigating the Implant Performance in Overdenture Wearers Submitted to Conventional and Immediate Loading

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernanda Faot ◽  
Mateus Bertolini Fernandes dos Santos
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Immediate Loading

scholarly journals Clinical trial research on COVID-19 in Germany – a systematic analysis

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 913
Author(s):  
Julian Hirt ◽  
Abeelan Rasadurai ◽  
Matthias Briel ◽  
Pascal Düblin ◽  
Perrine Janiaud ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Median Number ◽  
First Year ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
Clinical Trial Research ◽  
German Contribution

Background: In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to an unprecedented volume of almost 3,000 clinical trials registered worldwide. We aimed to describe the COVID-19 clinical trial research agenda in Germany during the first year of the pandemic. Methods: We identified randomized clinical trials assessing interventions to treat or prevent COVID-19 that were registered in 2020 and recruited or planned to recruit participants in Germany. We requested recruitment information from trial investigators as of April 2021. Results: In 2020, 65 trials were completely (n=27) or partially (n=38) conducted in Germany. Most trials investigated interventions to treat COVID-19 (86.2%; 56/65), in hospitalized patients (67.7%; 44/65), with industry funding (53.8%; 35/65). Few trials were completed (21.5%; 14/65). Overall, 187,179 participants were planned to be recruited (20,696 in Germany), with a median number of 106 German participants per trial (IQR 40 to 345).  From the planned German participants, 13.4%  were recruited (median 15 per trial (IQR 0 to 44). Conclusions: The overall German contribution to the worldwide COVID-19 clinical trial research agenda was modest. Few trials delivered urgently needed evidence. Most trials did not meet recruitment goals. Evaluation and international comparison of the challenges for conducting clinical trials in Germany is needed.

scholarly journals Guidelines on how to assess the validity of results presented in subgroup analysis of clinical trials

2002 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edson Duarte Moreira ◽  
Ezra Susser
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Usual Method ◽  
Validity Of Results ◽  
Results Of Treatment ◽  
Trial Participants

In observational studies, identification of associations within particular subgroups is the usual method of investigation. As an exploratory method, it is the bread and butter of epidemiological research. Nearly everything that has been learned in epidemiology has been derived from the analysis of subgroups. In a randomized clinical trial, the entire purpose is the comparison of the test subjects and the controls, and when there is particular interest in the results of treatment in a certain section of trial participants, a subgroup analysis is performed. These subgroups are examined to see if they are liable to a greater benefit or risk from treatment. Thus, analyzing patient subsets is a natural part of the process of improving therapeutic knowledge through clinical trials. Nevertheless, the reliability of subgroup analysis can often be poor because of problems of multiplicity and limitations in the numbers of patients studied. The naive interpretation of the results of such examinations is a cause of great confusion in the therapeutic literature. We emphasize the need for readers to be aware that inferences based on comparisons between subgroups in randomized clinical trials should be approached more cautiously than those based on the main comparison. That is, subgroup analysis results derived from a sound clinical trial are not necessarily valid; one must not jump to conclusions and accept the validity of subgroup analysis results without an appropriate judgment.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and the Play the Winner Rule

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 622-623
Author(s):  
NIGEL PANETH ◽  
SYLVAN WALLENSTEIN
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Conventional Treatment ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Ethical Problem ◽  
Therapeutic Trial ◽  
Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Treatment Comparisons

The therapeutic trial comparing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with conventional treatment in neonatal respiratory failure reported by Bartlett et al (Pediatrics 1985;76:479-487) uses a method of comparing treatments unlikely to be familiar to most pediatricians. Known as the "randomized play the winner" method, it has thus far been little used in clinical research. Most clinical investigators consider the conventional randomized clinical trial to be the last word in treatment comparisons. But randomized clinical trials are costly, cumbersome, and to some observers less than ideal ethically. The ethical problem arises from the fact that during a "successful" randomized clinical trial (ie, one that demonstrates a significant advantage to one treatment) about half of the trial subjects will receive a treatment which, at the end of the trial, will be known to be inferior.

Simulation Modeling as a Decision-Making Aid in Economic Evaluation for Randomized Clinical Trials

2011 ◽  
pp. 1738-1758
Author(s):  
Tillal Eldabi ◽  
Robert D. Macredie ◽  
Ray J. Paul
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Simulation Model ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Simulation Modeling ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
Modeling Process

This chapter reports on the use of simulation in supporting decision-making about what data to collect in a randomized clinical trial (RCT). We show how simulation also allows the identification of critical variables in the RCT by measuring their effects on the simulation model’s “behavior.” Healthcare systems pose many of the challenges, including difficulty in understanding the system being studied, uncertainty over which data to collect, and problems of communication between problem owners. In this chapter we show how simulation also allows the identification of critical variables in the RCT by measuring their effects on the simulation model’s “behavior.” The experience of developing the simulation model leads us to suggest simple but extremely valuable lessons. The first relates to the inclusion of stakeholders in the modeling process and the accessibility of the resulting models. The ownership and confidence felt by stakeholders in our case is, we feel, extremely important and may provide an example to others developing models.

scholarly journals Compliance with clinical trial registration and reporting guidelines by Latin American and Caribbean journals

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 1095-1100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ludovic Reveiz ◽  
Eleana Villanueva ◽  
Chimaraoke Iko ◽  
Iveta Simera
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
The Caribbean ◽  
Latin American And Caribbean

The objective of this study was to determine to what extent Latin American and Caribbean biomedical journals have endorsed and complied with clinical trial registration and reporting guidelines. A search of randomized clinical trials was carried out using the LILACS database. The randomized clinical trials identified through the search were assessed to determine whether trial registration and CONSORT guidance was mentioned. Information regarding endorsement of the ICMJE, trial registration and other reporting guidelines was extracted from the online instructions for authors of the journals included in the study. The search identified 477 references. We assessed a random sample of 240 titles of which 101 were randomized clinical trials published in 56 journals. Trial registration was reported in 19.8% of the randomized clinical trials, 6.9% were prospectively registered and 3% mentioned CONSORT. The ICMJE was mentioned by 68% of the journals and 36% of journals required trial registration. Fewer journals provided advice on reporting guidelines: CONSORT (13%), PRISMA (1.8%), STROBE (1.8%), and the EQUATOR network (3.6%). Wider endorsement of trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines is necessary in clinical trials conducted in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Survival among metastatic colorectal patients in clinical trials compared to the real world.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 673-673
Author(s):  
Ziwei Wang ◽  
Lindsay Hwang ◽  
James Don Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Median Survival ◽  
Real World ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
The Real ◽  
Clinical Trial Results

673 Background: Randomized clinical trials play a central role in clinical research though only a small fraction of patients partake in clinical studies. Questions thus arise regarding the generalizability of clinical trial results to the remainder of the population. This study evaluated whether patient survival from randomized clinical trials in metastatic colorectal cancer reflects real world outcomes. Methods: A Pubmed search was used to identify randomized phase III clinical trials of first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer published between 2005 and 2010. We excluded secondary or pooled analyses, second-line treatments, non-metastatic patients, non-English language, and non-randomized studies. Thirty-one clinical trials met these criteria, comprised of 79 distinct clinical trial arms. Overall survival among clinical trial patients was compared to metastatic colorectal cancer patients within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Within SEER, we restricted the analysis time-period and age of patients to match the enrollment period and age of patients within each individual clinical trial. Results: The clinical trials enrolled a total of 16,614 patients. Among all clinical trial arms the median survival ranged from 6.7-62 months, 1-year survival ranged from 30-97%, and 2-year survival ranged from 6-88%. Compared to SEER, the median survival was higher in 95% of the individual clinical trial arms by an average of 5.4 months (p<0.0001). The 1-year survival was higher in 94% of the clinical trial arms by an average of 16.7% (p<0.0001). The 2-year survival was higher in 71% of the clinical trial arms by an average of 7.2% (p<0.0001). Conclusions: This study found substantially improved survival among clinical trial participants compared to patients in the SEER database suggesting that survival estimates from clinical trials may not generalize to the “real world.” Potential patient factors such as differences in underlying comorbidity, performance status, disease burden, as well as variation in treatment could not be addressed in this study, though these factors likely explain some of the observed survival differences.

Primary Stroke Prevention in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: Implementing the Clinical Trial Findings

1997 ◽  
Vol 31 (10) ◽  
pp. 1187-1196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia A Howard ◽  
Pamela W Duncan
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Risk Patients

OBJECTIVE: To review the clinical trials evaluating warfarin for primary stroke prophylaxis in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), to discuss the relative benefits and risks of warfarin versus aspirin therapy, and to review the clinical practice guidelines and identify potential barriers to their implementation in clinical practice. DATA SOURCES: A MEDLINE literature search was performed to identify clinical trials of antithrombotic therapy for NVAF, clinical practice guidelines, studies evaluating physician practices and attitudes, cost-effectiveness studies, and pertinent review articles. Key search terms included atrial fibrillation, stroke, antithrombotic, warfarin, aspirin, and cost-effectiveness. DATA EXTRACTION: Prospective, randomized clinical trials were selected for analysis. Clinical practice guidelines from recognized panels of experts were reviewed. Comprehensive review articles were selected. DATA SYNTHESIS: NVAF is a common arrhythmia that is associated with a substantial risk for stroke. Seven prospective, randomized, clinical trials have conclusively demonstrated the efficacy of warfarin for stroke prevention. The greatest benefits are achieved in older patients and those with comorbidities that increase their risk for stroke. The potential benefits of preventing a devastating stroke, however, must be weighed against the potential for bleeding complications. Warfarin has been shown to be cost-effective in high-risk patients, provided the rate of complications is minimized. Nonetheless, many physicians remain hesitant to implement warfarin therapy in older, high-risk patients. The clinical data on aspirin are less consistent than those observed with warfarin. Aspirin appears to be most effective in younger individuals or those considered to be at low risk for stroke. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NVAF, the personal, social, and economic consequences of stroke are often devastating. Clinical trials have provided definitive proof that the risks of stroke can be significantly reduced through the use of appropriate antithrombotic therapy. Despite this evidence and the recommendations of a number of clinical practice guidelines, variations in care exist that continue to place patients at risk. Additional outcomes research is needed to evaluate the impact of the clinical trial findings and practice guidelines on clinical practice and to develop methods for overcoming barriers to implementation.

Why Cancer Patients Enter Randomized Clinical Trials: Exploring the Factors That Influence Their Decision

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (21) ◽  
pp. 4312-4318 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Wright ◽  
Timothy J. Whelan ◽  
Susan Schiff ◽  
Sacha Dubois ◽  
Dauna Crooks ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Multivariate Logistic Regression Model ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Trial Entry

Purpose Few interventions have been designed and tested to improve recruitment to clinical trials in oncology. The multiple factors influencing patients' decisions have made the prioritization of specific interventions challenging. The present study was undertaken to identify the independent predictors of a cancer patient's decision to enter a randomized clinical trial. Methods A list of factors from the medical literature was augmented with a series of focus groups involving cancer patients, physicians, and clinical research associates (CRAs). A series of questionnaires was developed with items based on these factors and were administered concurrently to 189 cancer patients, their physicians, and CRAs following the patient's decision regarding trial entry. Forward logistic regression modeling was performed using the items significantly correlated (by univariate analysis) with the decision to enter a clinical trial. Results A number of items were significantly correlated with the patient's decision. In the multivariate logistic regression model, the patient's perception of personal benefit was the most important, with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.08 (P < .05). CRA-related items involving supportive aspects of the decision-making process were also important. These included whether the CRA helped with the decision (OR = 1.71; P < .05), and whether the decision was hard for the patient to make (OR = 0.52; P < .05). Conclusion Strategies that better address the potential benefits of trial entry may result in improved accrual. Interventions or aids that focus on the supportive aspects of the decision-making process while respecting the need for information and patient autonomy may also lead to meaningful improvements in accrual.

An Account of how Attention to Usability and Lifestyle Issues may Contribute to Protocols for Clinical Trials of Medical Devices (Preprint)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars Rune Christensen ◽  
Lene Nielsen ◽  
Anne Sabers
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Medical Device ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Case Report Form ◽  
Data Generation ◽  
Pragmatic Approach ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Sham Procedure

UNSTRUCTURED Objectives: Within the field of medicine attempts have been made to establish the efficacy of new treatments with medical devises by double blind randomized clinical trials. Very precise protocols have been developed for this purpose. However, experience has shown that conducting clinical trials on medical devices may be fraught with trouble often because of the difficulty of establishing a valid sham procedure. This paper makes a contribution by showing how one may formulate protocols for clinical trials of medical devices that rely on a pragmatic approach, which includes an interest in usability and lifestyle issues, rather than a sham procedure. Our case in point is a protocol for a clinical trial, conducted by the authors, of a new kind of treatment of epilepsy with a medical device. Methods: This paper makes a methodological contribution relevant for the formulation of protocols for clinical trials of medical devises in cases where a sham devise is not practical. Results: In the paper, we make three major points: (1) abandoning basing a clinical trial of a medical device on a sham procedure, involves making choices as to the formulation of a pragmatic alternative, (2) shifting to a pragmatic evaluation based on data on for example continued use, may involve generating data on usability and lifestyle issues. Understanding to what degree noncompliance is due to usability or lifestyle issues requires attention to the design of suitable instruments for data generation, and (3) the successful formulation of a protocol for a clinical trial of a medical device (where sham is not an option) relies on a case report form (CRF) that facilitates the separation of data on the (somatic) efficacy of the treatment from data on usability and lifestyle issues. Conclusion: Digital devices play an important role in medicine today and in the future. This paper makes a contribution by showing how one may formulate protocols for clinical trials of medical devices that do not rely on a sham procedure. The approach is based on a pragmatic approach, the generating data on usability and lifestyle issues connected to the use of the devise, and the separation of these issues from the evaluation of the efficacy of the active component of the treatment.

Is the International Germ Cell Consensus Classification (IGCCC) sufficiently predictive in 2015?

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 387-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig R. Nichols ◽  
Claudio Jeldres ◽  
Christian K. Kollmannsberger
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Germ Cell ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Germ Cell Tumors ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Poor Risk ◽  
Modern Era

387 Background: The IGCCC has been an invaluable tool to guide clinical trial development in disseminated germ cell tumors. This classification was developed in the early 1990s. The data were abstracted from records of pts treated between 1975 and 1990 and > 100 institutions submitted data. This analysis resulted in the development and validation of a simple system based on clinically derived parameters. Three risk groups were identified for disseminated nonseminoma.; “good risk” group with a predicted 5 year overall survival (OS) > 90%, ‘intermediate risk” with a 5 yr OS of 75% and “poor risk” with a predicted 48% 5 yr OS. Recently, a number of clinical trials and large institutions have reported outcomes in intermediate and poor risk disseminated germ cell tumors. Outcomes reported exceed IGCCC predictions. We hypothesize that the IGCCC substantially underestimates outcomes in the modern era. Further we speculate that a re-analysis of existing clinical trial data would be fruitful in predicting outcomes for disseminated germ cell tumors in the 21st century. Methods: Reports from large randomized clinical trials reporting outcomes in intermediate and poor risk disseminated germ cell tumors were reviewed and estimates of Progression Free and Overall survival made. Results: See Table. Conclusions: Compared to the IGCCC predictions based on data from 25-40 years ago, there appears to be improved overall survival in disseminated germ cell tumors in the modern era. Intermediate risk and poor risk disease appears to have OS exceeding 80-85% and 75% respectively. A more accurate prediction of outcomes with standard treatments should inform clinical trial design going forward. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document