Recruitment for placebo-controlled trials of interventional procedures: a patient-centred approach

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (12) ◽  
pp. e963-e965
Author(s):  
Rasha K. Al-Lamee ◽  
Michael Foley ◽  
Christopher Rajkumar ◽  
Alexandra N. Nowbar
F1000Research ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 1663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karolina Wartolowska ◽  
David Beard ◽  
Andrew Carr

In this paper, we use evidence from our earlier review of surgical randomised controlled trials with a placebo arm to show that blinding in trials of interventional procedures is feasible. We give examples of ingenious strategies that have been used to simulate the active procedure and to make the placebo control indistinguishable from the active treatment. We discuss why it is important to blind of patients, assessors, and caregivers and what types of bias that may occur in interventional trials. Finally, we describe the benefits of blinding, from the obvious ones such as avoiding bias, as well as less evident benefits such as avoiding patient drop out in the control arm.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Chou ◽  
Rongwei Fu ◽  
Tracy Dana ◽  
Miranda Pappas ◽  
Erica Hart ◽  
...  

Objective. To evaluate the benefits and harms of selected interventional procedures for acute and chronic pain that are not currently covered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) but are relevant for and have potential utility for use in the Medicare population, or that are covered by CMS but for which there is important uncertainty or controversy regarding use. Data sources. Electronic databases (Ovid® MEDLINE®, PsycINFO®, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) to April 12, 2021, reference lists, and submissions in response to a Federal Register notice. Review methods. Using predefined criteria and dual review, we selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for 10 interventional procedures and conditions that evaluated pain, function, health status, quality of life, medication use, and harms. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted for vertebral compression fracture; otherwise, outcomes were synthesized qualitatively. Effects were classified as small, moderate, or large using previously defined criteria. Results. Thirty-seven randomized trials (in 48 publications) were included. Vertebroplasty (13 trials) is probably more effective at reducing pain and improving function in older (>65 years of age) patients, but benefits are small (less than 1 point on a 10-point pain scale). Benefits appear smaller (but still present) in sham-controlled (5 trials) compared with usual care controlled trials (8 trials) and larger in trials of patients with more acute symptoms; however, testing for subgroup effects was limited by imprecision. Vertebroplasty is probably not associated with increased risk of incident vertebral fracture (10 trials). Kyphoplasty (2 trials) is probably more effective than usual care for pain and function in older patients with vertebral compression fracture at up to 1 month (moderate to large benefits) and may be more effective at >1 month to ≥1 year (small to moderate benefits) but has not been compared against sham therapy. Evidence on kyphoplasty and risk of incident fracture was conflicting. In younger (below age for Medicare eligibility) populations, cooled radiofrequency denervation for sacroiliac pain (2 trials) is probably more effective for pain and function versus sham at 1 and 3 months (moderate to large benefits). Cooled radiofrequency for presumed facet joint pain may be similarly effective versus conventional radiofrequency, and piriformis injection with corticosteroid for piriformis syndrome may be more effective than sham injection for pain. For the other interventional procedures and conditions addressed, evidence was too limited to determine benefits and harms. Conclusions. Vertebroplasty is probably effective at reducing pain and improving function in older patients with vertebral compression fractures; benefits are small but similar to other therapies recommended for pain. Evidence was too limited to separate effects of control type and symptom acuity on effectiveness of vertebroplasty. Kyphoplasty has not been compared against sham but is probably more effective than usual care for vertebral compression fractures in older patients. In younger populations, cooled radiofrequency denervation is probably more effective than sham for sacroiliac pain. Research is needed to determine the benefits and harms of the other interventional procedures and conditions addressed in this review.


F1000Research ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 1663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karolina Wartolowska ◽  
David Beard ◽  
Andrew Carr

In this paper, we have used evidence from our earlier review of surgical randomised controlled trials with a placebo arm to show that blinding in trials of interventional procedures is feasible, and that many creative methods can be used to make the active and the placebo procedure as similar as possible. We give examples of ingenious strategies used to simulate the active procedure and make the placebo control indistinguishable from the active treatment. We discuss why it is important to blind of patients, assessors, and caregivers and the types of bias that may occur in interventional trials. Finally, we describe the benefits of blinding, from the obvious ones such as avoiding bias, as well as less evident benefits such as avoiding patient drop out in the control arm.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e046025
Author(s):  
Xiaoqin Wang ◽  
Grace Martin ◽  
Behnam Sadeghirad ◽  
Andrea J Darzi ◽  
Rachel J Couban ◽  
...  

IntroductionChronic, non-cancer, axial or radicular spinal pain is a common condition associated with considerable socioeconomic burden. Clinicians frequently offer patients various interventional procedures for the treatment of chronic spine pain; however, the comparative effectiveness and safety of available procedures remains uncertain.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials that explores the effectiveness and harms of interventional procedures for the management of axial or radicular, chronic, non-cancer, spine pain. We will identify eligible studies through a systematic search of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science from inception without language restrictions. Eligible trials will: (1) enrol primarily adult patients (≥18 years old) with axial or radicular, chronic, non-cancer, spine pain, (2) randomise patients to different, currently available, interventional procedures or to an interventional procedure and a placebo/sham procedure or usual care, and (3) measure outcomes at least 1 month after randomisation.Pairs of reviewers will independently screen articles identified through searches and extract information and assess risk of bias of eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias. We will use frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses to assess the relative effects of interventional procedures, and five a priori hypotheses to explore between studies subgroup effects. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in evidence for each outcome, including direct, indirect and network estimates.Ethics and disseminationNo research ethics approval is required for this systematic review, as no confidential patient data will be used. We will disseminate our findings through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations, and our review will support development of a BMJ Rapid Recommendations providing contextualised clinical guidance based on this body of evidence.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020170667.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document