Unique Study Designs in Nephrology: N-of-1 Trials and Other Designs

CONSORT extension for reporting N-of-1 trials for traditional Chinese medicine (CENT for TCM) : Recommendations, explanation and elaboration

BACKGROUND

N-of-1 trial is a desired and appropriate approach to assessing the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) interventions. There have been an increasing number of N-of-1 trials for TCM published. However, a lack of preferred reporting guidance led in the general poor reporting quality of these trials. Due to the unique characteristics of TCM, the working group developed this CONSORT Extension for reporting N-of-1 Trials for Traditional Chinese Medicine (CENT for TCM) to assist TCM researchers in reporting N-of-1 trials for TCM.

METHODS

We registered CENT for TCM at the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network (available at equator-network.org). The development was a comprehensive process through collection of the initial reporting items, two-round scientific Delphi consensus survey with 17 panelists, revision and formation of the final reporting checklist.

RESULTS

The checklist includes 25 items within six domains, eight items in which were extended and elaborated on the items of the CENT 2015 checklist. Explanation of the items were listed adequately considering the nature of TCM, introducing the concept of TCM syndrome differentiation and TCM interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

CENT for TCM can be used to assess the completeness of the reporting of N-of-1 trials for TCM. The working group expect that CENT for TCM could be a practical tool to enhance the comprehensiveness and transparency of the design, implementation and reporting of N-of-1 trials for TCM.

Advancing personalized treatment of Alzheimer's disease: a call for the N-of-1 trial design

There has not been a new treatment for Alzheimer's disease (AD) for over a decade, with a large number of Phase II/III randomized clinical trials failing. Randomized clinical trials examine group effects that may be difficult to extrapolate to the individual patient given the multifactorial pathogenic processes associated with AD, and are increasingly long in duration, expensive to run, requiring large sample sizes that are difficult to recruit. An alternative approach is to consider N-of-1 trial designs. The N-of-1 trial is ideal to evaluate effectiveness of interventions for chronic conditions combining the rigor of a randomized trial with the tailoring of therapy to an individual. This review examines the N-of-1 design, its benefits and limitations, and how it could be implemented to investigate new therapies for AD.

Comparison of the efficacy of dispensing granules with traditional decoction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Dispensing granules have been developed for about 20 years. However, whether they are as effective as the traditional decoction kept unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis was made to assess the efficacy of dispensing granules compared with traditional decoction.

Methods

We searched four databases since their inception to 9th September in 2016. Two authors independently identified trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias with Cochrane Reviewer's Handbook 5.0. We conducted meta-analysis with RevMan 5.1.0 software for eligible and appropriate trials.

Results

In the end, 7,035 participants from 51 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared dispensing granules with traditional decoction were included in this systematic review. There were 33 different kinds of diseases for investigation, of which 8 RCTs observed common cold, 4 RCTs observed migraine. For rheumatoid arthritis, insomnia and hypertension, there were 3 RCTs reported respectively. The last RCTs reported different kinds of diseases in one or two trials. The majority of trials were in low methodological quality. Thirty-eight (74.5%) RCTs showed that the efficacy of dispensing granules were similar with traditional decoction, 6 (11.8%) RCTs reported that the therapeutic efficacy of dispensing granules were significantly better than traditional decoction. We conducted meta-analysis for 4 trials investigating patients with migraine. The results showed that dispensing granules reduced headache frequency by about 1.03 attacks per month as compared to traditional decoction. No evidence was found in terms of migraine intensity and duration.

Conclusions

The low quality of RCTs and conflicting results made it difficult to draw a definite conclusion. In the future, it needs much more evidence to explore the efficacy and safety of dispensing granules. N-of-1 trials and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation methods may be better choices for assessing the efficacy of them than RCTs.