1
|
Gamble C, Lewis S, Stocken D, Juszczak E, Bradburn M, Doré C, Kean S. Determining a risk-proportionate approach to the validation of statistical programming for clinical trials. Clin Trials 2024; 21:85-94. [PMID: 37957825 PMCID: PMC10865752 DOI: 10.1177/17407745231204036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The contribution of the statistician to the design and analysis of a clinical trial is acknowledged as essential. Ability to reconstruct the statistical contribution to a trial requires rigorous and transparent documentation as evidenced by the reproducibility of results. The process of validating statistical programmes is a key requirement. While guidance relating to software development and life cycle methodologies details steps for validation by information systems developers, there is no guidance applicable to programmes written by statisticians. We aimed to develop a risk-based approach to the validation of statistical programming that would support scientific integrity and efficient resource use within clinical trials units. METHODS The project was embedded within the Information Systems Operational Group and the Statistics Operational Group of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Unit network. Members were asked to share materials relevant to validation of statistical programming. A review of the published literature, regulatory guidance and knowledge of relevant working groups was undertaken. Surveys targeting the Information Systems Operational Group and Statistics Operational Group were developed to determine current practices across the Registered Clinical Trials Unit network. A risk-based approach was drafted and used as a basis for a workshop with representation from statisticians, information systems developers and quality assurance managers (n = 15). The approach was subsequently modified and presented at a second, larger scale workshop (n = 47) to gain a wider perspective, with discussion of content and implications for delivery. The approach was revised based on the discussions and suggestions made. The workshop was attended by a member of the Medicines for Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Inspectorate who also provided comments on the revised draft. RESULTS Types of statistical programming were identified and categorised into six areas: generation of randomisation lists; programmes to explore/understand the data; data cleaning, including complex checks; derivations including data transformations; data monitoring; or interim and final analysis. The risk-based approach considers each category of statistical programme against the impact of an error and its likelihood, whether the programming can be fully prespecified, the need for repeated use and the need for reproducibility. Approaches to the validation of programming within each category are proposed. CONCLUSION We have developed a risk-based approach to the validation of statistical programming. It endeavours to facilitate the implementation of targeted quality assurance measures while making efficient use of limited resources.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carrol Gamble
- Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Steff Lewis
- Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Deborah Stocken
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Edmund Juszczak
- Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Mike Bradburn
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Caroline Doré
- Comprehensive Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sharon Kean
- Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
- Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kahan BC, Hindley J, Edwards M, Cro S, Morris TP. The estimands framework: a primer on the ICH E9(R1) addendum. BMJ 2024; 384:e076316. [PMID: 38262663 PMCID: PMC10802140 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-076316] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/07/2023] [Indexed: 01/25/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Brennan C Kahan
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London WC1V 6LJ, UK
| | - Joanna Hindley
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London WC1V 6LJ, UK
| | - Mark Edwards
- Department of Anaesthesia, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
- Southampton NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Suzie Cro
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Tim P Morris
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London WC1V 6LJ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kahan BC, Morris TP, Cro S. We must let the research question drive study methods. BMJ 2024; 384:q173. [PMID: 38262675 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.q173] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/25/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Brennan C Kahan
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London, UK
| | - Tim P Morris
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London, UK
| | - Suzie Cro
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Yap C, Solovyeva O, de Bono J, Rekowski J, Patel D, Jaki T, Mander A, Evans TRJ, Peck R, Hayward KS, Hopewell S, Ursino M, Rantell KR, Calvert M, Lee S, Kightley A, Ashby D, Chan AW, Garrett-Mayer E, Isaacs JD, Golub R, Kholmanskikh O, Richards D, Boix O, Matcham J, Seymour L, Ivy SP, Marshall LV, Hommais A, Liu R, Tanaka Y, Berlin J, Espinasse A, Dimairo M, Weir CJ. Enhancing reporting quality and impact of early phase dose-finding clinical trials: CONSORT Dose-finding Extension (CONSORT-DEFINE) guidance. BMJ 2023; 383:e076387. [PMID: 37863501 PMCID: PMC10583500 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-076387] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/05/2023] [Indexed: 10/22/2023]
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Johann de Bono
- Institute of Cancer Research, London SM2 5NG, UK
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Jan Rekowski
- Institute of Cancer Research, London SM2 5NG, UK
| | | | - Thomas Jaki
- MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK
- Computational Statistics Group, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
| | - Adrian Mander
- Centre For Trials Research, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK
| | - Thomas R Jeffry Evans
- Institute of Cancer Sciences, CR-UK Beatson Institute, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Richard Peck
- Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
- Hoffmann-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Kathryn S Hayward
- Departments of Physiotherapy, and Medicine (Royal Melbourne Hospital), University of Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Sally Hopewell
- Oxford Clinical Research Unit, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Moreno Ursino
- ReCAP/F CRIN, INSERM, Paris, France
- Unit of Clinical Epidemiology, CHU Robert Debré, APHP, URC, INSERM CIC-EC 1426, Reims, France
- INSERM Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Sorbonne University, Paris Cité University, Paris, France
- Health data and model driven approaches for Knowledge Acquisition team, Centre Inria, Paris, France
| | | | - Melanie Calvert
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration West Midlands, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Research Blood and Transplant Research Unit in Precision Transplant and Cellular Therapeutics, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Institute of Translational Medicine, University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Shing Lee
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Deborah Ashby
- School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - An-Wen Chan
- Department of Medicine, Women's College Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer
- Center for Research and Analytics, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA, USA
| | - John D Isaacs
- Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
- Musculoskeletal Unit, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Robert Golub
- Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 633 Clark Street, Evanston, IL, USA
| | - Olga Kholmanskikh
- Federal Agency for Medicines and Health Products, Brussels, Belgium
- European Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Dawn Richards
- Clinical Trials Ontario, MaRS Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - James Matcham
- Strategic Consulting, Cytel (Australia), Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Lesley Seymour
- Investigational New Drug Programme, Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Cancer Research Institute, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | - S Percy Ivy
- Investigational Drug Branch, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Lynley V Marshall
- Institute of Cancer Research, London SM2 5NG, UK
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Antoine Hommais
- Department of Clinical Research, National Cancer Institute, Boulogne-Billancourt, France
| | - Rong Liu
- Bristol Myers Squibb, New York, NY, USA
| | - Yoshiya Tanaka
- First Department of Internal Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan
| | | | | | - Munyaradzi Dimairo
- Division of Population Health, Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Christopher J Weir
- Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Yap C, Rekowski J, Ursino M, Solovyeva O, Patel D, Dimairo M, Weir CJ, Chan AW, Jaki T, Mander A, Evans TRJ, Peck R, Hayward KS, Calvert M, Rantell KR, Lee S, Kightley A, Hopewell S, Ashby D, Garrett-Mayer E, Isaacs J, Golub R, Kholmanskikh O, Richards DP, Boix O, Matcham J, Seymour L, Ivy SP, Marshall LV, Hommais A, Liu R, Tanaka Y, Berlin J, Espinasse A, de Bono J. Enhancing quality and impact of early phase dose-finding clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT Dose-finding Extension (SPIRIT-DEFINE) guidance. BMJ 2023; 383:e076386. [PMID: 37863491 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-076386] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/22/2023]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jan Rekowski
- Institute of Cancer Research, London SM2 5NG, UK
| | - Moreno Ursino
- ReCAP/F CRIN, INSERM, Paris, France
- Unit of Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospital Centre Robert Debré, Reims, France
- INSERM Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Sorbonne University, Paris, France
- Health data and model driven approaches for Knowledge Acquisition team, Centre Inria, Paris, France
| | | | | | - Munyaradzi Dimairo
- Division of Population Health, Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Christopher J Weir
- Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - An-Wen Chan
- Department of Medicine, Women's College Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Thomas Jaki
- MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK
- Computational Statistics Group, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
| | - Adrian Mander
- Centre For Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Thomas R Jeffry Evans
- Institute of Cancer Sciences, CR-UK Beatson Institute, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Richard Peck
- Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
- Hoffmann-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Kathryn S Hayward
- Departments of Physiotherapy, and Medicine (Royal Melbourne Hospital), University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
- Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Melanie Calvert
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration West Midlands, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research Blood and Transplant Research Unit in Precision Transplant and Cellular Therapeutics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, Institute of Translational Medicine, University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Shing Lee
- Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Sally Hopewell
- Oxford Clinical Research Unit, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Deborah Ashby
- School of Public Health, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK
| | - Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer
- Center for Research and Analytics, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA, USA
| | - John Isaacs
- Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
- Musculoskeletal Unit, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Robert Golub
- Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Evanston, IL, USA
| | | | | | | | - James Matcham
- Strategic Consulting, Cytel (Australia), Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Lesley Seymour
- Investigational New Drug Programme, Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Cancer Research Institute, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | - S Percy Ivy
- Investigational Drug Branch, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Lynley V Marshall
- Institute of Cancer Research, London SM2 5NG, UK
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Antoine Hommais
- Department of Clinical Research, National Cancer Institute, Boulogne-Billancourt, France
| | - Rong Liu
- Bristol Myers Squibb, New York, NY, USA
| | - Yoshiya Tanaka
- First Department of Internal Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan
| | | | | | - Johann de Bono
- Institute of Cancer Research, London SM2 5NG, UK
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Alger E, Minchom A, Lee Aiyegbusi O, Schipper M, Yap C. Statistical methods and data visualisation of patient-reported outcomes in early phase dose-finding oncology trials: a methodological review. EClinicalMedicine 2023; 64:102228. [PMID: 37781154 PMCID: PMC10541462 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102228] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2023] [Revised: 08/25/2023] [Accepted: 09/05/2023] [Indexed: 10/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Traditionally, within dose-finding clinical trials, treatment toxicity and tolerability are assessed by clinicians. Research has shown that clinician reporting may have inadequate inter-rater reliability, poor correlation with patient reported outcomes, and under capture the true toxicity burden. The introduction of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), where the patient can assess their own symptomatic adverse events or quality of life, has potential to complement current practice to aid dose optimisation. There are no international recommendations offering guidance for the inclusion of PROs in dose-finding trial design and analysis. Our review aimed to identify and describe current statistical methods and data visualisation techniques employed to analyse and visualise PRO data in published early phase dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs). Methods DFOTs published from June 2016-December 2022, which presented PRO analysis methods, were included in this methodological review. We extracted 35 eligible papers indexed in PubMed. Study characteristics extracted included: PRO objectives, PRO measures, statistical analysis and visualisation techniques, and whether the PRO was involved in interim and final dose selection decisions. Findings Most papers (30, 85.7%) did not include clear PRO objectives. 20 (57.1%) papers used inferential statistical techniques to analyse PROs, including survival analysis and mixed-effect models. One trial used PROs to classify a clinicians' assessed dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Three (8.6%) trials used PROs to confirm the tolerability of the recommended dose. 25 trial reports visually presented PRO data within a figure or table within their publication, of which 12 papers presented PRO score longitudinally. Interpretation This review highlighted that the statistical methods and reporting of PRO analysis in DFOTs are often poorly described and inconsistent. Many trials had PRO objectives which were not clearly described, making it challenging to evaluate the appropriateness of the statistical techniques used. Drawing conclusions based on DFOTs which are not powered for PROs may be misleading. With no guidance and standardisation of analysis methods for PROs in early phase DFOTs, it is challenging to compare study findings across trials. Therefore, there is a crucial need to establish international guidance to enhance statistical methods and graphical presentation for PRO analysis in the dose-finding setting. Funding EA has been supported to undertake this work as part of a PhD studentship from the Institute of Cancer Research within the MRC/NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership. AM is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, the Institute of Cancer Research and Imperial College.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily Alger
- Clinical Trial and Statistics Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Anna Minchom
- Drug Development Unit, Royal Marsden/Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Matthew Schipper
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Christina Yap
- Clinical Trial and Statistics Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Solovyeva O, Dimairo M, Weir CJ, Hee SW, Espinasse A, Ursino M, Patel D, Kightley A, Hughes S, Jaki T, Mander A, Evans TRJ, Lee S, Hopewell S, Rantell KR, Chan AW, Bedding A, Stephens R, Richards D, Roberts L, Kirkpatrick J, de Bono J, Yap C. Development of consensus-driven SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for early phase dose-finding trials: the DEFINE study. BMC Med 2023; 21:246. [PMID: 37408015 PMCID: PMC10324137 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-023-02937-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2023] [Accepted: 06/12/2023] [Indexed: 07/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) trials are crucial for the development of a new intervention and influence whether it should be investigated in further trials. Guidance exists for clinical trial protocols and completed trial reports in the SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines, respectively. However, both guidelines and their extensions do not adequately address the characteristics of EPDF trials. Building on the SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists, the DEFINE study aims to develop international consensus-driven guidelines for EPDF trial protocols (SPIRIT-DEFINE) and reports (CONSORT-DEFINE). METHODS The initial generation of candidate items was informed by reviewing published EPDF trial reports. The early draft items were refined further through a review of the published and grey literature, analysis of real-world examples, citation and reference searches, and expert recommendations, followed by a two-round modified Delphi process. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) was pursued concurrently with the quantitative and thematic analysis of Delphi participants' feedback. RESULTS The Delphi survey included 79 new or modified SPIRIT-DEFINE (n = 36) and CONSORT-DEFINE (n = 43) extension candidate items. In Round One, 206 interdisciplinary stakeholders from 24 countries voted and 151 stakeholders voted in Round Two. Following Round One feedback, one item for CONSORT-DEFINE was added in Round Two. Of the 80 items, 60 met the threshold for inclusion (≥ 70% of respondents voted critical: 26 SPIRIT-DEFINE, 34 CONSORT-DEFINE), with the remaining 20 items to be further discussed at the consensus meeting. The parallel PPIE work resulted in the development of an EPDF lay summary toolkit consisting of a template with guidance notes and an exemplar. CONCLUSIONS By detailing the development journey of the DEFINE study and the decisions undertaken, we envision that this will enhance understanding and help researchers in the development of future guidelines. The SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE guidelines will allow investigators to effectively address essential items that should be present in EPDF trial protocols and reports, thereby promoting transparency, comprehensiveness, and reproducibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE are registered with the EQUATOR Network ( https://www.equator-network.org/ ).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Munyaradzi Dimairo
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Christopher J Weir
- Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Siew Wan Hee
- University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK
- University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | | | - Moreno Ursino
- Inserm, Centre de Recherche Des Cordeliers, Sorbonne UniversitéUniversité Paris Cité, 75006, Paris, France
- HeKA, Inria Paris, 75015, Paris, France
- Unit of Clinical Epidemiology, AP-HP, CHU Robert Debré, CIC-EC 1426, Paris, France
- RECaP/F-CRIN, Inserm, 5400, Nancy, France
| | | | - Andrew Kightley
- Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) Lead, Lichfield, UK
| | | | - Thomas Jaki
- MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
| | | | | | - Shing Lee
- Columbia University, Mailman School of Public Health, New York, USA
| | - Sally Hopewell
- Oxford Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - An-Wen Chan
- Department of Medicine, Women's College Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Johann de Bono
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
- The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Kahan BC, Cro S, Li F, Harhay MO. Eliminating Ambiguous Treatment Effects Using Estimands. Am J Epidemiol 2023; 192:987-994. [PMID: 36790803 PMCID: PMC10236519 DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwad036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/25/2022] [Revised: 02/06/2023] [Accepted: 02/13/2023] [Indexed: 02/16/2023] Open
Abstract
Most reported treatment effects in medical research studies are ambiguously defined, which can lead to misinterpretation of study results. This is because most authors do not attempt to describe what the treatment effect represents, and instead require readers to deduce this based on the reported statistical methods. However, this approach is challenging, because many methods provide counterintuitive results. For example, some methods include data from all patients, yet the resulting treatment effect applies only to a subset of patients, whereas other methods will exclude certain patients while results will apply to everyone. Additionally, some analyses provide estimates pertaining to hypothetical settings in which patients never die or discontinue treatment. Herein we introduce estimands as a solution to the aforementioned problem. An estimand is a clear description of what the treatment effect represents, thus saving readers the necessity of trying to infer this from study methods and potentially getting it wrong. We provide examples of how estimands can remove ambiguity from reported treatment effects and describe their current use in practice. The crux of our argument is that readers should not have to infer what investigators are estimating; they should be told explicitly.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brennan C Kahan
- Correspondence to Dr. Brennan C. Kahan, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, 90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6LJ, United Kingdom (e-mail: )
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Svenson KL, Krasinski SD, Ellis M, Rosenthal N, Liu ET, Fasman KH. Animals, quality and the pursuit of relevance. Dis Model Mech 2022; 15:277008. [PMID: 36250972 PMCID: PMC9612867 DOI: 10.1242/dmm.049775] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
In 2021, the National Institutes of Health Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD) announced recommendations to improve the reproducibility of biomedical research using animals. In response, The Jackson Laboratory faculty and institutional leaders identified key strategies to further address this important issue. Taking inspiration from the evolution of clinical trials over recent decades in response to similar challenges, we identified opportunities for improvement, including establishment of common standards, use of genetically diverse populations, requirement for robust study design with appropriate statistical methods, and improvement in public databases to facilitate meta-analyses. In this Perspective, we share our response to ACD recommendations, with a specific focus on mouse models, with the aim of promoting continued active dialogue among researchers, using any animal system, worldwide. Such discussion will help to inform the biomedical community about these recommendations and further support their much-needed implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karen L. Svenson
- The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME 04609, USA,Author for correspondence (; )
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Grabowska W, Burton W, Kowalski MH, Vining R, Long CR, Lisi A, Hausdorff JM, Manor B, Muñoz-Vergara D, Wayne PM. A systematic review of chiropractic care for fall prevention: rationale, state of the evidence, and recommendations for future research. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2022; 23:844. [PMID: 36064383 PMCID: PMC9442928 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05783-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2022] [Accepted: 08/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Falls in older adults are a significant and growing public health concern. There are multiple risk factors associated with falls that may be addressed within the scope of chiropractic training and licensure. Few attempts have been made to summarize existing evidence on multimodal chiropractic care and fall risk mitigation. Therefore, the broad purpose of this review was to summarize this research to date. BODY: Systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, PEDro, and Index of Chiropractic Literature. Eligible study designs included randomized controlled trials (RCT), prospective non-randomized controlled, observational, and cross-over studies in which multimodal chiropractic care was the primary intervention and changes in gait, balance and/or falls were outcomes. Risk of bias was also assessed using the 8-item Cochrane Collaboration Tool. The original search yielded 889 articles; 21 met final eligibility including 10 RCTs. One study directly measured the frequency of falls (underpowered secondary outcome) while most studies assessed short-term measurements of gait and balance. The overall methodological quality of identified studies and findings were mixed, limiting interpretation regarding the potential impact of chiropractic care on fall risk to qualitative synthesis. CONCLUSION Little high-quality research has been published to inform how multimodal chiropractic care can best address and positively influence fall prevention. We propose strategies for building an evidence base to inform the role of multimodal chiropractic care in fall prevention and outline recommendations for future research to fill current evidence gaps.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Weronika Grabowska
- Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School Division of Preventive Medicine, Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, 900 Commonwealth Avenue, 3rd Floor, Boston, MA, 02215, USA
| | - Wren Burton
- Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School Division of Preventive Medicine, Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, 900 Commonwealth Avenue, 3rd Floor, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
| | - Matthew H Kowalski
- Osher Clinical Center for Integrative Medicine, Brigham and Women's Healthcare Center, 850 Boylston Street, Suite 422, Chestnut Hill, MA, 02445, USA
| | - Robert Vining
- Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, 1000 Brady Street, Davenport, IA, 52803, USA
| | - Cynthia R Long
- Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, 1000 Brady Street, Davenport, IA, 52803, USA
| | - Anthony Lisi
- Yale University Center for Medical Informatics, 300 George Street, Suite 501, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Jeffrey M Hausdorff
- Center for the Study of Movement Cognition and Mobility, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Dafna St 5, Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel
| | - Brad Manor
- Hinda and Arthur Marcus Institute for Aging Research, 1200 Centre Street, Boston, MA, 02131, USA
| | - Dennis Muñoz-Vergara
- Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School Division of Preventive Medicine, Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, 900 Commonwealth Avenue, 3rd Floor, Boston, MA, 02215, USA
| | - Peter M Wayne
- Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School Division of Preventive Medicine, Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, 900 Commonwealth Avenue, 3rd Floor, Boston, MA, 02215, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Cro S, Kahan BC, Rehal S, Chis Ster A, Carpenter JR, White IR, Cornelius VR. Evaluating how clear the questions being investigated in randomised trials are: systematic review of estimands. BMJ 2022; 378:e070146. [PMID: 35998928 PMCID: PMC9396446 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-070146] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/21/2022] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate how often the precise research question being addressed about an intervention (the estimand) is stated or can be determined from reported methods, and to identify what types of questions are being investigated in phase 2-4 randomised trials. DESIGN Systematic review of the clarity of research questions being investigated in randomised trials in 2020 in six leading general medical journals. DATA SOURCE PubMed search in February 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES Phase 2-4 randomised trials, with no restrictions on medical conditions or interventions. Cluster randomised, crossover, non-inferiority, and equivalence trials were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Number of trials that stated the precise primary question being addressed about an intervention (ie, the primary estimand), or for which the primary estimand could be determined unambiguously from the reported methods using statistical knowledge. Strategies used to handle post-randomisation events that affect the interpretation or existence of patient outcomes, such as intervention discontinuations or uses of additional drug treatments (known as intercurrent events), and the corresponding types of questions being investigated. RESULTS 255 eligible randomised trials were identified. No trials clearly stated all the attributes of the estimand. In 117 (46%) of 255 trials, the primary estimand could be determined from the reported methods. Intercurrent events were reported in 242 (95%) of 255 trials; but the handling of these could only be determined in 125 (49%) of 255 trials. Most trials that provided this information considered the occurrence of intercurrent events as irrelevant in the calculation of the treatment effect and assessed the effect of the intervention regardless (96/125, 77%)-that is, they used a treatment policy strategy. Four (4%) of 99 trials with treatment non-adherence owing to adverse events estimated the treatment effect in a hypothetical setting (ie, the effect as if participants continued treatment despite adverse events), and 19 (79%) of 24 trials where some patients died estimated the treatment effect in a hypothetical setting (ie, the effect as if participants did not die). CONCLUSIONS The precise research question being investigated in most trials is unclear, mainly because of a lack of clarity on the approach to handling intercurrent events. Clear reporting of estimands is necessary in trial reports so that all stakeholders, including clinicians, patients and policy makers, can make fully informed decisions about medical interventions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42021238053.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suzie Cro
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Brennan C Kahan
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, London, UK
| | | | | | - James R Carpenter
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, London, UK
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Ian R White
- Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, London, UK
| | - Victoria R Cornelius
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|