Explore the vast range of titles available.

Randomized noncomparative trials (RNCTs) promise reduced accrual requirements vs randomized controlled comparative trials because RNCTs do not enroll a control group and instead compare outcomes to historical controls or prespecified estimates. We hypothesized that RNCTs often suffer from two methodological concerns: (1) lack of interpretability due to group-specific inferences in nonrandomly selected samples and (2) misinterpretation due to unlicensed between-group comparisons lacking prespecification. The purpose of this study was to characterize RNCTs and the incidence of these two methodological concerns. We queried PubMed and Web of Science on September 14, 2023, to conduct a meta-epidemiological analysis of published RNCTs in any field of medicine. Trial characteristics and the incidence of methodological concerns were manually recorded. We identified 70 RNCTs published from 2002 to 2023. RNCTs have been increasingly published over time (slope = 0.28, 95% CI 0.17–0.39, P < .001). Sixty trials (60/70, 86%) had a lack of interpretability for the primary endpoint due to group-specific inferences. Unlicensed between-group comparisons were present in 36 trials (36/70, 51%), including in the primary conclusion of 31 trials (31/70, 44%), and were accompanied by significance testing in 20 trials (20/70, 29%). Only five (5/70, 7%) trials were found to have neither of these flaws. Although RNCTs are increasingly published over time, the primary analysis of nearly all published RNCTs in the medical literature was unsupported by their fundamental underlying methodological assumptions. RNCTs promise group-specific inference, which they are unable to deliver, and undermine the primary advantage of randomization, which is comparative inference. The ongoing use of the RNCT design in lieu of a traditional randomized controlled comparative trial should therefore be reconsidered.

BackgroundSubstantial amounts of public funds are invested in health research worldwide. Publicly funded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) often recruit participants at a slower than anticipated rate. Many trials fail to reach their planned sample size within the envisaged trial timescale and trial funding envelope.ObjectivesTo review the consent, recruitment and retention rates for single and multicentre randomised control trials funded and published by the UK's National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme.Data sources and study selectionHTA reports of individually randomised single or multicentre RCTs published from the start of 2004 to the end of April 2016 were reviewed.Data extractionInformation was extracted, relating to the trial characteristics, sample size, recruitment and retention by two independent reviewers.Main outcome measuresTarget sample size and whether it was achieved; recruitment rates (number of participants recruited per centre per month) and retention rates (randomised participants retained and assessed with valid primary outcome data).ResultsThis review identified 151 individually RCTs from 787 NIHR HTA reports. The final recruitment target sample size was achieved in 56% (85/151) of the RCTs and more than 80% of the final target sample size was achieved for 79% of the RCTs (119/151). The median recruitment rate (participants per centre per month) was found to be 0.92 (IQR 0.43–2.79) and the median retention rate (proportion of participants with valid primary outcome data at follow-up) was estimated at 89% (IQR 79–97%).ConclusionsThere is considerable variation in the consent, recruitment and retention rates in publicly funded RCTs. Investigators should bear this in mind at the planning stage of their study and not be overly optimistic about their recruitment projections.

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are frequently used to evaluate interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Robust execution and transparent reporting of randomization procedures are essential for successful implementation and accurate interpretation of CRTs. Our objectives were to review the quality of reporting and implementation of randomization procedures in a sample of parallel-arm CRTs conducted in LMICs. We selected a random sample of 300 primary reports of parallel-arm CRTs from a database of 800 CRTs conducted in LMICs between 2017 and 2022. Data were extracted by two reviewers per trial and summarized using descriptive statistics. Among 300 trials, 192 (64%) reported the method of sequence generation, 213 (71%) reported the type of randomization procedure used, 146 (49%) reported who generated the sequence, 136 (45%) reported whether randomization was implemented by an independent person, and 75 (25%) reported a method of allocation concealment. Among those reporting the methods used, suboptimal randomization procedures were common: 28% did not use a computer, 21% did not use restricted randomization, 58% did not use a statistician to generate the sequence, in 53% the person was not independent from the trial, and 80% did not use central randomization. Public randomization ceremonies were used in 10% of trials as an alternative method of allocation concealment and to reassure participants of fair allocation procedures. The conduct and reporting of randomization procedures of CRTs in LMICs is suboptimal. Dissemination of guidance to promote robust implementation of randomization in LMICs is required, and future research on the implementation of public randomization ceremonies is warranted. Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are trials where entire groups, rather than individuals, are randomly assigned to different treatments (eg, intervention or usual care). This randomization process can be challenging in CRTs; clear reporting and proper execution are important to ensure fairness and accurate results. In this study, we reviewed how well randomization procedures were reported and carried out in 300 CRTs, selected from a larger database of 800 CRTs, conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and published between 2017 and 2022. We found that reporting on key aspects of randomization was often incomplete: 64% reported how they created the random allocation sequence, 71% reported the type of randomization method used, 49% reported who generated the sequence, 45% reported whether a person independent from the trial handled the randomization, and 25% reported how they kept group assignments hidden until the intervention was ready to begin. Even when trials did reported these methods, many did not follow best practices: 28% did not use a computer, 21% did not apply techniques to ensure balanced treatment arms, 58% did not involve a statistician to generate the sequence, 53% had someone involved in the trial handle randomization (as opposed to an independent person), and 80% did not use central randomization to assign groups, where a third party reveals treatment assignment to groups. Interestingly, 10% of trials used public randomization ceremonies (events where group assignments are revealed in a public setting) to keep group assignments hidden until revealment and to reassure participants that the process was fair. Overall, we found that randomization procedures in CRTs were often not well reported or carried out optimally. It is important for researchers to follow established guidelines to ensure randomization is done properly in CRTs in LMICs. More research is also needed to understand how public randomization ceremonies are used in practice. [Display omitted] •Robust randomization methods are essential for cluster randomized trials (CRTs).•Improved adherence to reporting and best practices for randomization in CRTs is needed.•Public randomization ceremonies may help with implementation challenges.•Further research on the conduct of public randomization ceremonies is warranted.

Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard assessment for health technologies. A key aspect of the design of any clinical trial is the target sample size. However, many publicly-funded trials fail to reach their target sample size. This study seeks to assess the current state of recruitment success and grant extensions in trials funded by the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) program and the UK Medical Research Council (MRC). Methods Data were gathered from two sources: the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) HTA Journal Archive and the MRC subset of the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) register. A total of 440 trials recruiting between 2002 and 2008 were assessed for eligibility, of which 73 met the inclusion criteria. Where data were unavailable from the reports, members of the trial team were contacted to ensure completeness. Results Over half (55%) of trials recruited their originally specified target sample size, with over three-quarters (78%) recruiting 80% of their target. There was no evidence of this improving over the time of the assessment. Nearly half (45%) of trials received an extension of some kind. Those that did were no more likely to successfully recruit. Trials with 80% power were less likely to successfully recruit compared to studies with 90% power. Conclusions While recruitment appears to have improved since 1994 to 2002, publicly-funded trials in the UK still struggle to recruit to their target sample size, and both time and financial extensions are often requested. Strategies to cope with such problems should be more widely applied. It is recommended that where possible studies are planned with 90% power.

  [...]we organised a CONSORT Group meeting to update the 2001 statement [6],[7],[8]. Transparent reporting reveals deficiencies in research if they exist. [...]investigators who conduct inadequate trials, but who must transparently report, should not be able to pass through the publication process without revelation of their trial's inadequacies.

Registry-based randomized controlled trials are defined as pragmatic trials that use registries as a platform for case records, data collection, randomization, and follow-up. Recently, the application of registry-based randomized controlled trials has attracted increasing attention in health research to address comparative effectiveness research questions in real-world settings, mainly due to their low cost, enhanced generalizability of findings, rapid consecutive enrollment, and the potential completeness of follow-up for the reference population, when compared with conventional randomized effectiveness trials. However several challenges of registry-based randomized controlled trials have to be taken into consideration, including registry data quality, ethical issues, and methodological challenges. In this article, we summarize the advantages, challenges, and areas for future research related to registry-based randomized controlled trials.

Common Sense Oncology (CSO) prioritises treatments providing meaningful benefits for people with cancer. Here, we describe CSO principles aimed at improving the design, analysis, and reporting of randomised, controlled, phase 3 clinical trials evaluating cancer treatments. These principles include: (1) control treatment should be the best current standard of care; (2) the preferred primary endpoint is overall survival or a validated surrogate; (3) an absolute measure of benefit should be provided, such as the difference between groups in median overall survival times or the proportion of surviving patients at a prespecified time; (4) health-related quality of life should be at least a secondary endpoint; (5) toxicity should be described objectively without subjective language diminishing its importance; (6) trials should be designed to show or rule out clinically meaningful differences in outcomes, rather than a statistically significant difference alone; (7) censoring should be detailed, and sensitivity analyses done to determine its possible effects; (8) experimental treatments known to improve overall survival at later disease stages should be offered and funded for patients progressing in the control group; and (9) reports of trials should include a lay-language summary. We include checklists to guide compliance with these principles. By encouraging adherence, CSO aims to ensure that clinical trials yield results that are scientifically robust and meaningful to patients.

Randomised controlled trials often use surrogate endpoints to substitute for a target outcome (an outcome of direct interest and relevance to trial participants, clinicians, and other stakeholders—eg, all cause mortality) to improve efficiency (through shortened duration of follow-up, reduced sample size, and lower research costs), and for ethical or practical reasons. However, their use has a fundamental limitation in terms of uncertainty of the intervention effect on the target outcome and limited information on potential intervention harms. There have been increasing calls for improved reporting of trial protocols that use surrogate endpoints. This report presents the SPIRIT-Surrogate, an extension of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist, a consensus driven reporting guideline designed for trial protocols using surrogate endpoints as the primary outcome(s). The SPIRIT-Surrogate extension includes nine items modified from the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. The guideline provides examples and explanations for each item. We recommend that all stakeholders (including trial investigators and sponsors, research ethics reviewers, funders, journal editors, and peer reviewers) use this extension in reporting trial protocols that use surrogate endpoints. Its use will allow for improved design of such trials, improved transparency, and interpretation of findings when trials are completed, and ultimately reduced research waste.

Objectives To examine the reporting characteristics and methodological details of randomised trials indexed in PubMed in 2000 and 2006 and assess whether the quality of reporting has improved after publication of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement in 2001.Design Comparison of two cross sectional investigations.Study sample All primary reports of randomised trials indexed in PubMed in December 2000 (n=519) and December 2006 (n=616), including parallel group, crossover, cluster, factorial, and split body study designs.Main outcome measures The proportion of general and methodological items reported, stratified by year and study design. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to represent changes in reporting between 2000 and 2006.Results The majority of trials were two arm (379/519 (73%) in 2000 v 468/616 (76%) in 2006) parallel group studies (383/519 (74%) v 477/616 (78%)) published in specialty journals (482/519 (93%) v 555/616 (90%)). In both 2000 and 2006, a median of 80 participants were recruited per trial for parallel group trials. The proportion of articles that reported drug trials decreased between 2000 and 2006 (from 393/519 (76%) to 356/616 (58%)), whereas the proportion of surgery trials increased (51/519 (10%) v 128/616 (21%)). There was an increase between 2000 and 2006 in the proportion of trial reports that included details of the primary outcome (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.33), sample size calculation (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.40 to 1.95), and the methods of random sequence generation (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.97) and allocation concealment (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.76). There was no difference in the proportion of trials that provided specific details on who was blinded (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10). Conclusions Reporting of several important aspects of trial methods improved between 2000 and 2006; however, the quality of reporting remains well below an acceptable level. Without complete and transparent reporting of how a trial was designed and conducted, it is difficult for readers to assess its conduct and validity.

AbstractObjectivesTo evaluate the compliance with prospective registration and inclusion of the trial registration number (TRN) in published randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and to analyse the rationale behind, and detect selective registration bias in, retrospective trial registration.DesignCross sectional analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, the 17 World Health Organization’s trial registries, University of Toronto library, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) list of member journals, and the InCites Journal Citation Reports.Study selection criteriaRCTs registered in any WHO trial registry and published in any PubMed indexed journal in 2018.ResultsThis study included 10 500 manuscripts published in 2105 journals. Overall, 71.2% (7473/10500) reported the TRN and 41.7% (3013/7218) complied with prospective trial registration. The univariable and multivariable analyses reported significant relations (P<0.05) between reporting the TRN and the impact factor and ICMJE membership of the publishing journal. A significant relation (P<0.05) was also observed between prospective trial registration and the registry, region, condition, funding, trial size, interval between paper registration and submission dates, impact factor, and ICMJE membership of the publishing journal. A manuscript published in an ICMJE member journal was 5.8 times more likely to include the TRN (odds ratio 5.8, 95% confidence interval 4.0 to 8.2), and a published trial was 1.8 times more likely to be registered prospectively (1.8, 1.5 to 2.2) when published in an ICMJE member journal compared with other journals. This study detected a new form of bias, selective registration bias, with a higher proportion (85.2% (616/723)) of trials registered retrospectively within a year of submission for publication. Higher rates of retrospective registrations were observed within the first three to eight weeks after enrolment of study participants. Within the 286 RCTs registered retrospectively and published in an ICMJE member journal, only 2.8% (8/286) of the authors included a statement justifying the delayed registration. Reasons included lack of awareness, error of omission, and the registration process taking longer than anticipated.ConclusionsThis study found a high compliance in reporting of the TRN for trial papers published in ICMJE member journals, but prospective trial registration was low.