As the number of submissions to Pilot and Feasibility Studies increases, there is a need for good quality reporting guidelines to help researchers tailor their reports in a way that is consistent and ...helpful to other readers. The publication in 2016 of the CONSORT extension to pilot and feasibility trials filled a much-needed gap, but there still remains some uncertainty as to how to report pilot and feasibility studies that are not randomised. This editorial aims to provide some general guidance on how to report the most common types of non-randomised pilot and feasibility studies that are submitted to the journal. We recommend using the CONSORT extension to pilot and feasibility trials as the main reference document--it includes detailed elaboration and explanation of each item, and in most cases, simple adaptation, or non-use of items that are not applicable, will suffice. Several checklists found on the Equator website may provide helpful supplementary guidance, when used alongside the CONSORT extension, and we give some examples.
Publishing protocols of trials including protocols of pilot and feasibility trials-designed to inform the designs of main trials-has been advocated as an important strategy towards improving ...transparency in the conduct and reporting of main trials and pilot/feasibility trials. This editorial aims to provide some general guidance on how to report protocols of pilot and feasibility trials, drawing upon two available resources-the CONSORT extension to pilot trials and the SPIRIT guideline for main trials. We describe how these might be adapted for the reporting of protocol manuscripts of pilot and feasibility trials for submission in
journal.
Pilot studies for phase III trials - which are comparative randomized trials designed to provide preliminary evidence on the clinical efficacy of a drug or intervention - are routinely performed in ...many clinical areas. Also commonly know as "feasibility" or "vanguard" studies, they are designed to assess the safety of treatment or interventions; to assess recruitment potential; to assess the feasibility of international collaboration or coordination for multicentre trials; to increase clinical experience with the study medication or intervention for the phase III trials. They are the best way to assess feasibility of a large, expensive full-scale study, and in fact are an almost essential pre-requisite. Conducting a pilot prior to the main study can enhance the likelihood of success of the main study and potentially help to avoid doomed main studies. The objective of this paper is to provide a detailed examination of the key aspects of pilot studies for phase III trials including: 1) the general reasons for conducting a pilot study; 2) the relationships between pilot studies, proof-of-concept studies, and adaptive designs; 3) the challenges of and misconceptions about pilot studies; 4) the criteria for evaluating the success of a pilot study; 5) frequently asked questions about pilot studies; 7) some ethical aspects related to pilot studies; and 8) some suggestions on how to report the results of pilot investigations using the CONSORT format.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
AbstractObjectiveTo determine the efficacy and safety of low carbohydrate diets (LCDs) and very low carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) for people with type 2 diabetes.DesignSystematic review and ...meta-analysis.Data sourcesSearches of CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CAB, and grey literature sources from inception to 25 August 2020.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials evaluating LCDs (<130 g/day or <26% of a 2000 kcal/day diet) and VLCDs (<10% calories from carbohydrates) for at least 12 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes were eligible.Data extractionPrimary outcomes were remission of diabetes (HbA1c <6.5% or fasting glucose <7.0 mmol/L, with or without the use of diabetes medication), weight loss, HbA1c, fasting glucose, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included health related quality of life and biochemical laboratory data. All articles and outcomes were independently screened, extracted, and assessed for risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence at six and 12 month follow-up. Risk estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. Outcomes were assessed according to a priori determined minimal important differences to determine clinical importance, and heterogeneity was investigated on the basis of risk of bias and seven a priori subgroups. Any subgroup effects with a statistically significant test of interaction were subjected to a five point credibility checklist.ResultsSearches identified 14 759 citations yielding 23 trials (1357 participants), and 40.6% of outcomes were judged to be at low risk of bias. At six months, compared with control diets, LCDs achieved higher rates of diabetes remission (defined as HbA1c <6.5%) (76/133 (57%) v 41/131 (31%); risk difference 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.47; 8 studies, n=264, I2=58%). Conversely, smaller, non-significant effect sizes occurred when a remission definition of HbA1c <6.5% without medication was used. Subgroup assessments determined as meeting credibility criteria indicated that remission with LCDs markedly decreased in studies that included patients using insulin. At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes. Large clinically important improvements were seen in weight loss, triglycerides, and insulin sensitivity at six months, which diminished at 12 months. On the basis of subgroup assessments deemed credible, VLCDs were less effective than less restrictive LCDs for weight loss at six months. However, this effect was explained by diet adherence. That is, among highly adherent patients on VLCDs, a clinically important reduction in weight was seen compared with studies with less adherent patients on VLCDs. Participants experienced no significant difference in quality of life at six months but did experience clinically important, but not statistically significant, worsening of quality of life and low density lipoprotein cholesterol at 12 months. Otherwise, no significant or clinically important between group differences were found in terms of adverse events or blood lipids at six and 12 months.ConclusionsOn the basis of moderate to low certainty evidence, patients adhering to an LCD for six months may experience remission of diabetes without adverse consequences. Limitations include continued debate around what constitutes remission of diabetes, as well as the efficacy, safety, and dietary satisfaction of longer term LCDs.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020161795.
We describe a framework for defining pilot and feasibility studies focusing on studies conducted in preparation for a randomised controlled trial. To develop the framework, we undertook a Delphi ...survey; ran an open meeting at a trial methodology conference; conducted a review of definitions outside the health research context; consulted experts at an international consensus meeting; and reviewed 27 empirical pilot or feasibility studies. We initially adopted mutually exclusive definitions of pilot and feasibility studies. However, some Delphi survey respondents and the majority of open meeting attendees disagreed with the idea of mutually exclusive definitions. Their viewpoint was supported by definitions outside the health research context, the use of the terms 'pilot' and 'feasibility' in the literature, and participants at the international consensus meeting. In our framework, pilot studies are a subset of feasibility studies, rather than the two being mutually exclusive. A feasibility study asks whether something can be done, should we proceed with it, and if so, how. A pilot study asks the same questions but also has a specific design feature: in a pilot study a future study, or part of a future study, is conducted on a smaller scale. We suggest that to facilitate their identification, these studies should be clearly identified using the terms 'feasibility' or 'pilot' as appropriate. This should include feasibility studies that are largely qualitative; we found these difficult to identify in electronic searches because researchers rarely used the term 'feasibility' in the title or abstract of such studies. Investigators should also report appropriate objectives and methods related to feasibility; and give clear confirmation that their study is in preparation for a future randomised controlled trial designed to assess the effect of an intervention.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Antivirals play a critical role in the prevention and the management of influenza. One class of antivirals, neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs), is effective against all human influenza viruses. ...Currently there are two NAI drugs which are licensed worldwide: oseltamivir (Tamiflu®) and zanamivir (Relenza®); and two drugs which have received recent approval in Japan: peramivir and laninamivir. Until recently, the prevalence of antiviral resistance has been relatively low. However, almost all seasonal H1N1 strains that circulated in 2008-09 were resistant to oseltamivir whereas about 1% of tested 2009 pandemic H1N1 viruses were found to be resistant to oseltamivir. To date, no studies have demonstrated widespread resistance to zanamivir. It seems likely that the literature on antiviral resistance associated with oseltamivir as well as zanamivir is now sufficiently comprehensive to warrant a systematic review.The primary objectives were to systematically review the literature to determine the incidence of resistance to oseltamivir, zanamivir, and peramivir in different population groups as well as assess the clinical consequences of antiviral resistance.
We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE without language restrictions in September 2010 to identify studies reporting incidence of resistance to oseltamivir, zanamivir, and peramivir. We used forest plots and meta-analysis of incidence of antiviral resistance associated with the three NAIs. Subgroup analyses were done across a number of population groups. Meta-analysis was also performed to evaluate associations between antiviral resistance and clinical complications and symptoms.
We identified 19 studies reporting incidence of antiviral resistance. Meta-analysis of 15 studies yielded a pooled incidence rate for oseltamivir resistance of 2.6% (95%CI 0.7% to 5.5%). The incidence rate for all zanamivir resistance studies was 0%. Only one study measured incidence of antiviral resistance among subjects given peramivir and was reported to be 0%. Subgroup analyses detected higher incidence rates among influenza A patients, especially for H1N1 subtype influenza. Considerable heterogeneity between studies precluded definite inferences about subgroup results for immunocompromised patients, in-patients, and children. A meta-analysis of 4 studies reporting association between oseltamivir-resistance and pneumonia yielded a statistically significant risk ratio of 4.2 (95% CI 1.3 to 13.1, p = 0.02). Oseltamivir-resistance was not statistically significantly associated with other clinical complications and symptoms.
Our results demonstrate that that a substantial number of patients may become oseltamivir-resistant as a result of oseltamivir use, and that oseltamivir resistance may be significantly associated with pneumonia. In contrast, zanamivir resistance has been rarely reported to date.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Abstract Purpose Breast cancer detections for women with suspicious lesions mainly depend on two non-operative pathological tests-fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) and core needle biopsy (CNB). ...The aim of this systematic review was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of CNB and FNAC in this setting. Methods The data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) till February 2016. We included prospective series of studies which directly compared the accuracy of FNAC and CNB. We used forest plots to display the sensitivity and specificity of FNAC and CNB respectively. Pre-specified subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis were conducted. Results Ultimately, 12 articles (1802 patients) were included in the final analysis. The pooled analysis shows that the sensitivity of CNB is better than that of FNAC 87% (95% CI, 84%–88%, I2 = 88.5%) versus 74% (95% CI, 72%–77%, I2 = 88.3%) and the specificity of CNB is similar to that of FNAC 98% (95% CI, 96%–99%, I2 = 76.2%) versus 96% (95% CI, 94%–98%, I2 = 39.0%). For subgroup analysis, the sensitivities of both tests are better for palpable lesions than that of non-palpable lesions. Sensitivity analysis shows the robustness of the primary analysis. Conclusion Our study suggests that both of FNAC and CNB have good clinical performance. In similar circumstances, the sensitivity of CNB is better than that of FNAC, while their specificities are similar. FNAC could be still considered the first choice to evaluate suspicious nonpalpable breast lesions.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPUK, ZRSKP
In clinical trials it is not uncommon to face a multiple testing problem which can have an impact on both type I and type II error rates, leading to inappropriate interpretation of trial results. ...Multiplicity issues may need to be considered at the design, analysis and interpretation stages of a trial. The proportion of trial reports not adequately correcting for multiple testing remains substantial. The purpose of this article is to provide an introduction to multiple testing issues in clinical trials, and to reduce confusion around the need for multiplicity adjustments. We use a tutorial, question-and-answer approach to address the key issues of why, when and how to consider multiplicity adjustments in trials. We summarize the relevant circumstances under which multiplicity adjustments ought to be considered, as well as options for carrying out multiplicity adjustments in terms of trial design factors including Population, Intervention/Comparison, Outcome, Time frame and Analysis (PICOTA). Results are presented in an easy-to-use table and flow diagrams. Confusion about multiplicity issues can be reduced or avoided by considering the potential impact of multiplicity on type I and II errors and, if necessary pre-specifying statistical approaches to either avoid or adjust for multiplicity in the trial protocol or analysis plan.
IntroductionThe commonly used frequentist paradigm of null hypothesis statistics testing with its reliance on the p-value and the corresponding notion of ‘statistical significance’ has been under ...ongoing criticism. Misinterpretation and misuse of the p-value have contributed to publication bias, unreliable studies, frequent false positives, fraud and mistrust in results of scientific studies. While p-values themselves are still useful, part of the problem may be the confusion between statistical and clinical significance. In randomised controlled trials of health interventions, this confusion could lead to erroneous conclusions about treatment efficacy, research waste and compromised patient outcomes. The extent to which clinical and statistical significance of published randomised clinical trials do not match is not known. This is a protocol for a methodological study to understand the extent of the problem of disparities between statistical and clinical significance in published clinical trials, and to identify and assess the factors associated with discrepant results in these studies.Methods and analysisA methodological survey of published randomised controlled trials is planned. Trials published between 2018 and 2022 and their protocols will be searched and screened for inclusion, with a planned sample size of 500 studies. The reported minimum clinically important difference, the study effect size and confidence intervals will be used to assess clinical importance of trial results. Comparison of statistical significance and clinical importance of the trial results will be used to determine disparity. Data will be analysed to estimate the outcomes, and factors associated with disparate study results will be assessed using logistic regression analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for the study has been granted by Stellenbosch University’s Health Research Ethics Committee. This is part of a larger study towards a PhD in Biostatistics and will be disseminated as a thesis, conference abstract and peer-reviewed manuscript.
Recent evidence indicates a potential therapeutic role of fluvoxamine for COVID-19. In the TOGETHER trial for acutely symptomatic patients with COVID-19, we aimed to assess the efficacy of ...fluvoxamine versus placebo in preventing hospitalisation defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to a tertiary hospital due to COVID-19.
This placebo-controlled, randomised, adaptive platform trial done among high-risk symptomatic Brazilian adults confirmed positive for SARS-CoV-2 included eligible patients from 11 clinical sites in Brazil with a known risk factor for progression to severe disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) or placebo (or other treatment groups not reported here). The trial team, site staff, and patients were masked to treatment allocation. Our primary outcome was a composite endpoint of hospitalisation defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to tertiary hospital due to COVID-19 up to 28 days post-random assignment on the basis of intention to treat. Modified intention to treat explored patients receiving at least 24 h of treatment before a primary outcome event and per-protocol analysis explored patients with a high level adherence (>80%). We used a Bayesian analytic framework to establish the effects along with probability of success of intervention compared with placebo. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04727424) and is ongoing.
The study team screened 9803 potential participants for this trial. The trial was initiated on June 2, 2020, with the current protocol reporting randomisation to fluvoxamine from Jan 20 to Aug 5, 2021, when the trial arms were stopped for superiority. 741 patients were allocated to fluvoxamine and 756 to placebo. The average age of participants was 50 years (range 18–102 years); 58% were female. The proportion of patients observed in a COVID-19 emergency setting for more than 6 h or transferred to a teritary hospital due to COVID-19 was lower for the fluvoxamine group compared with placebo (79 11% of 741 vs 119 16% of 756); relative risk RR 0·68; 95% Bayesian credible interval 95% BCI: 0·52–0·88), with a probability of superiority of 99·8% surpassing the prespecified superiority threshold of 97·6% (risk difference 5·0%). Of the composite primary outcome events, 87% were hospitalisations. Findings for the primary outcome were similar for the modified intention-to-treat analysis (RR 0·69, 95% BCI 0·53–0·90) and larger in the per-protocol analysis (RR 0·34, 95% BCI, 0·21–0·54). There were 17 deaths in the fluvoxamine group and 25 deaths in the placebo group in the primary intention-to-treat analysis (odds ratio OR 0·68, 95% CI: 0·36–1·27). There was one death in the fluvoxamine group and 12 in the placebo group for the per-protocol population (OR 0·09; 95% CI 0·01–0·47). We found no significant differences in number of treatment emergent adverse events among patients in the fluvoxamine and placebo groups.
Treatment with fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) among high-risk outpatients with early diagnosed COVID-19 reduced the need for hospitalisation defined as retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to a tertiary hospital.
FastGrants and The Rainwater Charitable Foundation.
For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
PDF
