Informing breast cancer patients about clinical trials: a randomized clinical trial of an educational booklet. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Experiences of randomization: interviews with patients and clinicians in the SPCG-IV trial. Randomized controlled trials in pediatric surgery: could we do better? A randomised trial of the effects of an additional communication strategy on recruitment into a large-scale, multi-centre trial. Quality assessment of reports on clinical trials in the Journal of Hepatology. An educational video to increase clinical trials enrollment among lung cancer patients. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. Randomized and non-randomized patients in clinical trials: experiences with comprehensive cohort studies.
To evaluate the impact of an educational booklet on women's knowledge of and willingness to participate in a randomized clinical trial of treatment for breast cancer.
                Women undergoing surgery for newly diagnosed early stage breast cancer were randomized to receive, or not, an information booklet explaining the need for and manner in which randomized trials are conducted.
                Eighty-three women with newly diagnosed early stage breast cancer completed a questionnaire assessing attitudes to random clinical trials (RCTs) and were randomized to receive usual information treatment options provided from their oncologist, or the educational booklet in addition to usual information from their oncologist (42 usual information, 41 booklet). Fewer women who received the clinical trials booklet (40% versus 47%) would consider participating in the hypothetical clinical trial (P = 0.6). Mean knowledge scores increased for both groups; moreover, women who did not receive the booklet showed similar improvements to women who received the booklet [mean difference 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.66 to 0.83]. In a multivariate analysis women who would consider participating in the clinical trial were more anxious [odds ratio (OR) 5.9, P = 0.02] had involved lymph nodes (OR 5.8, P = 0.02) and were less influenced by negative aspects of clinical trials (OR 7.7, P = 0.0001). After adjustment for these variables women who received the educational booklet were significantly less likely to consider trial participation (OR 0.22, P = 0.05).
                Educating women about clinical trials in this manner appears ineffective in improving recruitment to RCTs. Women appear to be more influenced by their perception of risk than understanding. This finding has ethical implications for communication of information about RCTs. To explore whether reported methodologic quality affects estimated intervention effects in randomized trials and contributes to discrepancies between the results of large randomized trials and small randomized trials in meta-analyses.
                Meta-analyses of randomized trials that included at least one large trial (>/=1000 participants) were included, regardless of the therapeutic area. Eligible meta-analyses were identified through electronic searches and bibliographies of relevant articles.
                Full-length randomized trials.
                Methodologic quality was assessed according to reported randomization, double blinding, and follow-up as separate components and by using the Jadad composite scale.
                Fourteen meta-analyses involving 190 randomized trials from eight therapeutic areas were included. Compared with large trials, intervention effects were exaggerated in small trials with inadequate allocation sequence generation (ratio of odds ratios, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.25 to 0.83]; P = 0.011), inadequate allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios, 0.49 [CI, 0.27 to 0.86]; P = 0.014), and no double blinding (ratio of odds ratios, 0.52 [CI, 0.28 to 0.96]; P = 0.01). Large trials did not differ significantly from small trials with adequate generation of the allocation sequence, adequate allocation concealment, or adequate double blinding. No association was seen between reported follow-up and intervention effects. The Jadad scale provided no additional information because the scale and the quality components overlapped substantially.
                Inadequate generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, and double blinding lead to exaggerated estimates of intervention benefit and may contribute to discrepancies between the results of large randomized trials and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Recruitment of both patients and clinicians to randomized trials is difficult. Low participation carries the risk of terminating studies early and making them invalid owing to insufficient statistical power. This study investigated patients' and clinicians' experiences of randomization with the aim of facilitating trial participation in the future.
                This was a qualitative study using content analysis. Patients offered to participate in a randomized trial and randomizing clinicians were interviewed. Five participants, four non-participants and five randomizing clinicians were interviewed, 2-8 years from randomization.
                Clinicians used strategies in interaction with the patients to facilitate decision making. Patients' attitudes differed and experiences of relatives or friends were often stated as reasons for treatment preferences. Patients described that letting chance decide treatment was a difficult barrier to overcome for randomization. The clinicians used a number of different strategies perceived to make randomization more acceptable to their patients. The clinicians' own motivation for randomizing patients for trials depended on the medical relevance of the study question and the clinicians' major obstacle was to maintain equipoise over time. Regular meetings with the study group helped to maintain equipoise and motivation.
                To establish a good platform for randomization the clinician needs to know about the patient's treatment preferences and the patient's attitude concerning the role of the clinician to facilitate decision making. The strategies used by the clinicians were perceived as helpful and could be tested in an intervention study. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are accepted as the gold standard for assessing the effectiveness of clinical interventions but are rarely reported in pediatric surgery. Have RCTs submitted to the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons (BAPS) Annual Congress during the last 5 years been adequately designed and large enough to produce a valid result?
                Abstracts accepted by the Annual BAPS Congress meetings between 1996 and 2000 were examined in collaboration with a senior health services researcher. The quality of the design, methodology, statistical analysis and conclusions, and the adequacy of the sample size were assessed for all identifiable clinical RCTs.
                From 760 accepted abstracts, there were only 9 RCTs (1%) of clinical interventions. In only 4 trials was the relevant primary end-point specified at the outset of the study, and none documented the method of randomization. Only one abstract mentioned blinding with respect to the intervention or outcome measure. Sample sizes were inadequate to detect even large clinical differences. To date, only one of these RCTs has been published in an English-language, peer-reviewed journal.
                Clear guidelines exist for the conduct of RCTs, yet compliance with these standards was rarely documented in abstracts of pediatric surgical RCTs presented at BAPS. Sample sizes were inadequate. RCTs in pediatric surgery are difficult to perform, but the specialty would benefit from well-designed, carefully conducted, multicentre, clinical RCTs to advance evidence-based practice.
                Copyright 2003, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. Timely participant recruitment remains a significant challenge for most clinical trials. We evaluated the effects on participant recruitment of communication between the central trial coordinators and the clinical sites in the setting of a large international multi-centre clinical trial. The effects of communication were determined in a single-blind randomised controlled trial involving 167 clinical sites in 19 countries. Clinical sites were randomised to either additional or usual communication strategies - the additional communication group received a communication package based on additional, individually-tailored feedback about recruitment, in addition to the usual correspondence from the central trial coordinators that was provided to the control group. The two study outcomes were the median time to half randomisation target and the median total number of participants randomised per clinical site. Eighty-five clinical centres were randomised to receive additional communication and 82 to receive usual communication. At the conclusion of recruitment, there was no significant difference in the median number of participants randomised per centre between the additional and usual groups (37.5 vs. 37.0, p=0.68). The median time to half randomisation target was lower in the additional communication group compared to the usual group, however this difference did not achieve conventional levels of statistical significance (4.4 months vs. 5.8 months, p=0.08). The findings suggest that the additional communication strategy may be of some incremental benefit in helping sites achieve recruitment targets sooner. Electronic searches on databases for randomised clinical trials and controlled clinical trials do not identify as many trials as handsearches, and trial reporting may be flawed. The aims were to identify all fully reported randomised clinical trials in the Journal of Hepatology and to make a qualitative assessment of the reporting.
                The publications were identified by systematically handsearching the full text of the journal and searching MEDLINE. Central dimensions of trial quality were used to assess the reporting quality of the trials.
                Randomised clinical trials represented 8.4% of the original articles (171/2028). Ten original articles (0.5%) could not be classified. A search on MEDLINE identified 81.3% of the randomised clinical trials, i.e., 139 out of the 171 identified by the handsearch. A total of 166 randomised clinical trials could be quality assessed. Forty-seven (28.3%) of them reported adequate generation of allocation sequence; 22 (13.3%) adequate allocation concealment; 95 (57.2%) allowed intention-to-treat analysis with only a few losses to follow-up; 50 (30.1%) were double-blind; 33 (19.9%) reported sample-size calculations; 13 trials (7.8%) employed the crossover design; and the median number of subjects per intervention arm in parallel group trials was 19 subjects (interquartile range: 11-31; range: 5-519). The quality of reporting was significantly better in regular issue articles than in supplement articles.
                Many important randomised clinical trials are published in the Journal of Hepatology, but there seems to be ample room for improvement of quality of reporting. Only 3 to 5% of new adult cancer patients participate in clinical trials nationwide. The lack of knowledge and awareness about clinical trials is a significant barrier to clinical trials participation. A randomized trial was conducted to test the effect of an educational video on positively changing patients' knowledge and attitudes regarding clinical trials and thereby increasing enrollment rates.
                Lung cancer patients were randomized to viewing either an 18-minute video about clinical trials before first clinic appointment or to standard care. Participants completed a baseline and 2-week postintervention survey to assess their knowledge and attitudes toward trials participation. Fisher's exact test tests, t tests, and regression were used to compare patient characteristics and outcomes between arms.
                Of 145 subjects randomized, 126 (63/arm) satisfied all inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. A linear regression showed that the video intervention was significantly associated with patients' self-assessed likelihood to enroll score measured at 2-week follow-up (p = 0.019). Although statistically insignificant, enrollment rates were found to be higher in the intervention arm for therapeutic trials alone (17.5% versus 11.1%) and for therapeutic and nontherapeutic trials combined (25.4% versus 15.9%).
                The brief educational video seems to be effective in positively changing lung cancer patients' attitudes about participation in clinical trials. Higher enrollment rates were also observed in the intervention group but the differences did not reach statistical significance. These findings suggest a potential impact of the educational video on clinical trial enrollment; however, larger studies are needed to confirm these findings. Selective reporting of outcomes within published studies based on the nature or direction of their results has been widely suspected, but direct evidence of such bias is currently limited to case reports.
                To study empirically the extent and nature of outcome reporting bias in a cohort of randomized trials.
                Cohort study using protocols and published reports of randomized trials approved by the Scientific-Ethical Committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, Denmark, in 1994-1995. The number and characteristics of reported and unreported trial outcomes were recorded from protocols, journal articles, and a survey of trialists. An outcome was considered incompletely reported if insufficient data were presented in the published articles for meta-analysis. Odds ratios relating the completeness of outcome reporting to statistical significance were calculated for each trial and then pooled to provide an overall estimate of bias. Protocols and published articles were also compared to identify discrepancies in primary outcomes.
                Completeness of reporting of efficacy and harm outcomes and of statistically significant vs nonsignificant outcomes; consistency between primary outcomes defined in the most recent protocols and those defined in published articles.
                One hundred two trials with 122 published journal articles and 3736 outcomes were identified. Overall, 50% of efficacy and 65% of harm outcomes per trial were incompletely reported. Statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared with nonsignificant outcomes for both efficacy (pooled odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-4.0) and harm (pooled odds ratio, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.8-12.0) data. In comparing published articles with protocols, 62% of trials had at least 1 primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. Eighty-six percent of survey responders (42/49) denied the existence of unreported outcomes despite clear evidence to the contrary.
                The reporting of trial outcomes is not only frequently incomplete but also biased and inconsistent with protocols. Published articles, as well as reviews that incorporate them, may therefore be unreliable and overestimate the benefits of an intervention. To ensure transparency, planned trials should be registered and protocols should be made publicly available prior to trial completion. In clinical research, randomized trials are widely accepted as the definitive method of evaluating the efficacy of therapies. Random assignment of patients to treatment ensures internal validity of the comparison of new treatments with controls. An assessment of external validity can best be achieved by comparing the randomized study sample to the population of patients who met the eligibility criteria but did not consent to randomization. The Comprehensive Cohort Study (CCS) is designed to recruit all patients fulfilling the clinical eligibility criteria regardless of their consent to randomization. The CCS concept was adopted in the major clinical trials of the German Breast Cancer Study Group (GBSG) conducted between 1983 and 1989. In this period 124 centres recruited 2084 patients in three clinical trials. 734 (35 per cent) of these patients accepted being randomized, while 1350 (65 per cent) chose one of the treatments under study; the randomization rates differed remarkably between trials. In this paper we examine the representativeness of the randomized patients in the three trials. Based on a median follow-up of about 5 years we present results on the external validity of the treatment effects estimated in the randomized patients by means of Cox's proportional hazards model and compare them between trials. We discuss advantages and disadvantages of the CCS design and conclude that its use is only justified under extraordinary circumstances.
There are currently insufficient data to confidently inform clinical practice. The limitations of these studies are plentiful and the risk of bias is high. These trials, however, are invaluable guides for current and future study design. Well conducted randomised trials are possible. Some may be underway. Current practice outside of well designed randomised trials should be clearly justified.