Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Inadequate planning and reporting of adjudication committees in clinical trials: Recommendation proposal
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Inadequate planning and reporting of adjudication committees in clinical trials: Recommendation proposal
Do you wish to request the book?
Inadequate planning and reporting of adjudication committees in clinical trials: Recommendation proposal
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Inadequate planning and reporting of adjudication committees in clinical trials: Recommendation proposal
2009
Overview
Adjudication committees (ACs) are recommended in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to standardize the assessment of events. We aimed to assess the reporting and functioning of ACs (synonyms: clinical event committees, endpoint committees) in clinical trials.
We searched five high-impact-factor medical journals for reports of RCTs with clinical event endpoints published between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2005.
ACs were reported in 33.4% of the 314 reports of RCTs. ACs were reported in 29.6% of trials with low risk of misclassification (i.e., “hard” main outcome), in 47.5% of trials with medium risk of misclassification (i.e., subjective main outcome and intervention delivered in a blinded fashion) and in 31% of trials with high risk of misclassification (i.e., subjective main outcome without intervention delivered in a blinded fashion). Selected cases to be adjudicated consisted largely of events identified by site investigators (93.3%). Data provided to the AC were reported for 47.4% of ACs.
Reporting of ACs is not fitted to the risk of biased misclassification. Important aspects of the functioning of ACs are insufficiently reported or raise methodological issues. We propose some recommendations for planning and reporting ACs in clinical trials.
Publisher
Elsevier Inc,Elsevier,Elsevier Limited
Subject
/ Biological and medical sciences
/ Clinical trial. Drug monitoring
/ Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committees - organization & administration
/ Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committees - standards
/ Humans
/ Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods
/ Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - standards
/ Pharmacology. Drug treatments
/ Randomized controlled trials
/ Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards
/ Santé publique et épidémiologie
/ Studies
