4.7 Review

Stopping Randomized Trials Early for Benefit and Estimation of Treatment Effects Systematic Review and Meta-regression Analysis

期刊

JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
卷 303, 期 12, 页码 1180-1187

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.310

关键词

-

资金

  1. UK Medical Research Council [G0600561]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation [PASMA-112951/1]
  3. Roche Research Foundation
  4. Santesuisse
  5. Gottfried and Julia Bangerter-Rhyner-Foundation
  6. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  7. MRC [G0600561] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Medical Research Council [G0600561] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context Theory and simulation suggest that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) stopped early for benefit (truncated RCTs) systematically overestimate treatment effects for the outcome that precipitated early stopping. Objective To compare the treatment effect from truncated RCTs with that from meta-analyses of RCTs addressing the same question but not stopped early (nontruncated RCTs) and to explore factors associated with overestimates of effect. Data Sources Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, and full-text journal content databases to identify truncated RCTs up to January 2007; search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects to identify systematic reviews from which individual RCTs were extracted up to January 2008. Study Selection Selected studies were RCTs reported as having stopped early for benefit and matching nontruncated RCTs from systematic reviews. Independent reviewers with medical content expertise, working blinded to trial results, judged the eligibility of the nontruncated RCTs based on their similarity to the truncated RCTs. Data Extraction Reviewers with methodological expertise conducted data extraction independently. Results The analysis included 91 truncated RCTs asking 63 different questions and 424 matching nontruncated RCTs. The pooled ratio of relative risks in truncated RCTs vs matching nontruncated RCTs was 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.77). This difference was independent of the presence of a statistical stopping rule and the methodological quality of the studies as assessed by allocation concealment and blinding. Large differences in treatment effect size between truncated and nontruncated RCTs (ratio of relative risks <0.75) occurred with truncated RCTs having fewer than 500 events. In 39 of the 63 questions (62%), the pooled effects of the nontruncated RCTs failed to demonstrate significant benefit. Conclusions Truncated RCTs were associated with greater effect sizes than RCTs not stopped early. This difference was independent of the presence of statistical stopping rules and was greatest in smaller studies. JAMA. 2010; 303(12): 1180-1187

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据