Explore the vast range of titles available.

This comprehensive, unified text on the principles and practice of clinical trials presents a detailed account of how to conduct the trials. It describes the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials in a non-technical manner and provides a general perspective on their historical development, current status, and future strategy. Features examples derived from the author's personal experience.

A previous analysis in this trial showed that among patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, the rate of the composite end point of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was significantly lower with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) than with surgical aortic-valve replacement. Longer-term outcomes are unknown. We randomly assigned patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR or surgery. The first primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization related to the valve, the procedure, or heart failure. The second primary end point was a hierarchical composite that included death, disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke, and the number of rehospitalization days, analyzed with the use of a win ratio analysis. Clinical, echocardiographic, and health-status outcomes were assessed through 5 years. A total of 1000 patients underwent randomization: 503 patients were assigned to undergo TAVR, and 497 to undergo surgery. A component of the first primary end point occurred in 111 of 496 patients in the TAVR group and in 117 of 454 patients in the surgery group (Kaplan-Meier estimates, 22.8% in the TAVR group and 27.2% in the surgery group; difference, -4.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.9 to 1.3; P = 0.07). The win ratio for the second primary end point was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.51; P = 0.25). The Kaplan-Meier estimates for the components of the first primary end point were as follows: death, 10.0% in the TAVR group and 8.2% in the surgery group; stroke, 5.8% and 6.4%, respectively; and rehospitalization, 13.7% and 17.4%. The hemodynamic performance of the valve, assessed according to the mean (±SD) valve gradient, was 12.8±6.5 mm Hg in the TAVR group and 11.7±5.6 mm Hg in the surgery group. Bioprosthetic-valve failure occurred in 3.3% of the patients in the TAVR group and in 3.8% of those in the surgery group. Among low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR or surgery, there was no significant between-group difference in the two primary composite outcomes. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675114.).

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Much of biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case–control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case–control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Rosiglitazone is an insulin sensitiser used in combination with metformin, a sulfonylurea, or both, for lowering blood glucose in people with type 2 diabetes. We assessed cardiovascular outcomes after addition of rosiglitazone to either metformin or sulfonylurea compared with the combination of the two over 5–7 years of follow-up. We also assessed comparative safety. In a multicentre, open-label trial, 4447 patients with type 2 diabetes on metformin or sulfonylurea monotherapy with mean haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 7·9% were randomly assigned to addition of rosiglitazone (n=2220) or to a combination of metformin and sulfonylurea (active control group, n=2227). The primary endpoint was cardiovascular hospitalisation or cardiovascular death, with a hazard ratio (HR) non-inferiority margin of 1·20. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00379769. 321 people in the rosiglitazone group and 323 in the active control group experienced the primary outcome during a mean 5·5-year follow-up, meeting the criterion of non-inferiority (HR 0·99, 95% CI 0·85–1·16). HR was 0·84 (0·59–1·18) for cardiovascular death, 1·14 (0·80–1·63) for myocardial infarction, and 0·72 (0·49–1·06) for stroke. Heart failure causing admission to hospital or death occurred in 61 people in the rosiglitazone group and 29 in the active control group (HR 2·10, 1·35–3·27, risk difference per 1000 person-years 2·6, 1·1–4·1). Upper and distal lower limb fracture rates were increased mainly in women randomly assigned to rosiglitazone. Mean HbA1c was lower in the rosiglitazone group than in the control group at 5 years. Addition of rosiglitazone to glucose-lowering therapy in people with type 2 diabetes is confirmed to increase the risk of heart failure and of some fractures, mainly in women. Although the data are inconclusive about any possible effect on myocardial infarction, rosiglitazone does not increase the risk of overall cardiovascular morbidity or mortality compared with standard glucose-lowering drugs. GlaxoSmithKline plc, UK.

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a two-day workshop, in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is often treated with immediate coronary stenting of the infarct-related artery. The use of a paclitaxel-eluting stent, as compared with a bare-metal stent, reduced the risk of restenosis and was equally safe. Acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is often treated with immediate coronary stenting of the infarct-related artery. The use of a paclitaxel-eluting stent, as compared with a bare-metal stent, reduced the risk of restenosis and was equally safe. By enlarging luminal dimensions and sealing dissection planes at the site of coronary-artery occlusion in patients with evolving ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, bare-metal stents reduce the risk of early and late recurrent ischemia and reocclusion of the infarct-related artery, as compared with balloon angioplasty alone, decreasing the need for subsequent revascularization of the target lesion with repeat percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary-artery bypass grafting. 1 , 2 Nonetheless, restenosis occurs in more than 20% of patients in whom bare-metal stents are implanted during primary PCI, and implantation of bare-metal stents, as compared with balloon angioplasty, has not reduced the rates of . . .

Primary results of the HORIZONS-AMI trial have been previously reported. In this final report, we aimed to assess 3-year outcomes. HORIZONS-AMI was a prospective, open-label, randomised trial undertaken at 123 institutions in 11 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older were eligible for enrolment if they had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), presented within 12 h after onset of symptoms, and were undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. By use of a computerised interactive voice response system, we randomly allocated patients 1:1 to receive bivalirudin or heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI; pharmacological randomisation; stratified by previous and expected drug use and study site) and, if eligible, randomly allocated 3:1 to receive a paclitaxel-eluting stent or a bare metal stent (stent randomisation; stratified by pharmacological group assignment, diabetes mellitus status, lesion length, and study site). We produced Kaplan-Meier estimates of major adverse cardiovascular events at 3 years by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00433966. Compared with 1802 patients allocated to receive heparin plus a GPI, 1800 patients allocated to bivalirudin monotherapy had lower rates of all-cause mortality (5·9% vs 7·7%, difference −1·9% [−3·5 to −0·2], HR 0·75 [0·58–0·97]; p=0·03), cardiac mortality (2·9% vs 5·1%, −2·2% [−3·5 to −0·9], 0·56 [0·40–0·80]; p=0·001), reinfarction (6·2% vs 8·2%, −1·9% [−3·7 to −0·2], 0·76 [0·59–0·99]; p=0·04), and major bleeding not related to bypass graft surgery (6·9% vs 10·5%, −3·6% [−5·5 to −1·7], 0·64 [0·51–0·80]; p=0·0001) at 3 years, with no significant differences in ischaemia-driven target vessel revascularisation, stent thrombosis, or composite adverse events. Compared with 749 patients who received a bare-metal stent, 2257 patients who received a paclitaxel-eluting stent had lower rates of ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (9·4% vs 15·1%, −5·7% [−8·6 to −2·7], 0·60 [0·48–0·76]; p<0·0001) after 3 years, with no significant differences in the rates of death, reinfarction, stroke or stent thrombosis. Stent thrombosis was high (≥4·5%) in both groups. The effectiveness and safety of bivalirudin monotherapy and paclitaxel-eluting stenting are sustained at 3 years for patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Boston Scientific and The Medicines Company.