DSpace Repository

Randomized trials addressing a similar question are commonly published after a trial stopped early for benefit

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Murad, M. H.
dc.contributor.author Guyatt, G. H.
dc.contributor.author Domecq, J. P.
dc.contributor.author Vemooij, R. W. M.
dc.contributor.author Erwin, P. J.
dc.contributor.author Meerpohl, J. J.
dc.contributor.author Prutsky, G. J.
dc.contributor.author Akl, E. A.
dc.contributor.author Mueller, K.
dc.contributor.author Bassler, D.
dc.contributor.author Schandelmaier, S.
dc.contributor.author Walter, S. D.
dc.contributor.author Busse, J. W.
dc.contributor.author Kasenda, B.
dc.contributor.author Pagano, G.
dc.contributor.author Pardo-Hernandez, H.
dc.contributor.author Montori, V. M.
dc.contributor.author Wang, Z.
dc.contributor.author Briel, M.
dc.date.accessioned 2019-01-25T16:36:28Z
dc.date.available 2019-01-25T16:36:28Z
dc.date.issued 2017
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12866/4839
dc.description.abstract Objective: We explored how investigators of ongoing or planned trials respond to the publication of a trial stopped early for benefit addressing a similar question. Study Design and Setting: We searched multiple databases from the date of publication of the truncated trial through August, 2015. Independent reviewers selected trials and extracted data. Results: We identified 207 trials truncated for early benefit; of which 102 (49%) were followed by subsequent trials (262 subsequent trials, median 2 per truncated trial, range 1-13). Only 99 (38%) provided a rationale justifying conducting a trial despite prior stopping. The top reasons were to address different population or setting (33%), skepticism of truncated trials findings because of small sample size (12%), inconsistency with other evidence (11%), or increased risk of bias (7%). We did not identify significant associations between subsequent trials and characteristics of truncated ones (risk of bias, precision, funding, or rigor of stopping decision). Conclusion: About half of the trials stopped early for benefit were followed by subsequent trials addressing a similar question. This suggests that future trialists may have been skeptic about the decision to stop prior trials. A more rigorous threshold for stopping early for benefit is needed. en_US
dc.language.iso eng
dc.publisher Elsevier
dc.relation.ispartofseries Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.rights.uri https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.es
dc.subject Health en_US
dc.subject Public, Environmental & Occupational en_US
dc.subject Health Care Sciences & Services en_US
dc.subject Systematic review en_US
dc.subject clinical-trial en_US
dc.subject critically-ill patients en_US
dc.subject Early en_US
dc.subject intensive insulin therapy en_US
dc.subject Methodology en_US
dc.subject Randomized controlled trials en_US
dc.subject termination of trials en_US
dc.subject Trial design en_US
dc.subject Trials stopped early for benefit en_US
dc.title Randomized trials addressing a similar question are commonly published after a trial stopped early for benefit en_US
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.identifier.doi https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.10.006
dc.subject.ocde https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.03.09
dc.relation.issn 1878-5921


Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess

Search DSpace


Browse

My Account

Statistics