Randomized controlled trials in environmental health research: unethical or underutilized?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Allen RW
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4285396 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Randomized controlled trials in environmental health research: unethical or underutilized?
Allen Ryan W RW Barn Prabjit K PK Lanphear Bruce P BP
PLoS medicine 20150106 1
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5104619 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A randomized clinical trial is widely regarded as the most rigorous study design to determine the efficacy of intervention because spurious causality and bias associated with other experimental designs can be avoided. The purpose of this article is to provide clinicians and clinical researchers the types of randomized clinical trials used in stroke studies and to discuss the advantages and the limitations for each type of randomized stroke clinical trials.
| S-EPMC2837939 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundHealthcare costs are rising, and a substantial proportion of medical care is of little value. De-implementation of low-value practices is important for improving overall health outcomes and reducing costs. We aimed to identify and synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on de-implementation interventions and to provide guidance to improve future research.MethodsMEDLINE and Scopus up to May 24, 2021, for individual and cluster RCTs comparing de-implementation interventions to usual care, another intervention, or placebo. We applied independent duplicate assessment of eligibility, study characteristics, outcomes, intervention categories, implementation theories, and risk of bias.ResultsOf the 227 eligible trials, 145 (64%) were cluster randomized trials (median 24 clusters; median follow-up time 305 days), and 82 (36%) were individually randomized trials (median follow-up time 274 days). Of the trials, 118 (52%) were published after 2010, 149 (66%) were conducted in a primary care setting, 163 (72%) aimed to reduce the use of drug treatment, 194 (85%) measured the total volume of care, and 64 (28%) low-value care use as outcomes. Of the trials, 48 (21%) described a theoretical basis for the intervention, and 40 (18%) had the study tailored by context-specific factors. Of the de-implementation interventions, 193 (85%) were targeted at physicians, 115 (51%) tested educational sessions, and 152 (67%) multicomponent interventions. Missing data led to high risk of bias in 137 (60%) trials, followed by baseline imbalances in 99 (44%), and deficiencies in allocation concealment in 56 (25%).ConclusionsDe-implementation trials were mainly conducted in primary care and typically aimed to reduce low-value drug treatments. Limitations of current de-implementation research may have led to unreliable effect estimates and decreased clinical applicability of studied de-implementation strategies. We identified potential research gaps, including de-implementation in secondary and tertiary care settings, and interventions targeted at other than physicians. Future trials could be improved by favoring simpler intervention designs, better control of potential confounders, larger number of clusters in cluster trials, considering context-specific factors when planning the intervention (tailoring), and using a theoretical basis in intervention design.RegistrationOSF Open Science Framework hk4b2.
| S-EPMC9526943 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mobile health technologies (mHealth) are patient-worn or portable devices aimed at increasing the granularity and relevance of clinical measurements. The implementation of mHealth has the potential to decrease sample size, duration, and cost of clinical trials. We performed a review of the ClinicalTrials.gov database using a standardized approach to identify adoption in and usefulness of mHealth in movement disorders interventional clinical trials. Trial phase, geographical area, availability of data captured, constructs of interest, and outcome priority were collected. Eligible trials underwent quality appraisal using an ad hoc 5-point checklist to assess mHealth feasibility, acceptability, correlation with patient-centered outcome measures, and clinical meaningfulness. A total of 29% (n = 54/184) registered trials were using mHealth, mainly in Parkinson's disease and essential tremor (59.3% and 27.8%). In most cases, mHealth were used in phase 2 trials (83.3%) as secondary outcome measures (59.3%). Only five phase 3 trials, representing 9.3% of the total, used mHealth (1 as primary outcome measure, 3 as secondary, and 1 as tertiary). Only 3.7% (n = 2/54) of all trials used mHealth for measuring both motor and non-motor symptoms, and 23.1% (n = 12/52) used mHealth for unsupervised, ecologic outcomes. Our findings suggest that mHealth remain underutilized and largely relegated to phase 2 trials for secondary or tertiary outcome measures. Efforts toward greater alignment of mHealth with patient-centered outcomes and development of a universal, common-language platform to synchronize data from one or more devices will assist future efforts toward the integration of mHealth into clinical trials.
| S-EPMC7851293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical research on mobile health (mHealth) interventions is too slow in comparison to the rapid speed of technological advances, thereby impeding sustainable research and evidence-based implementation of mHealth interventions.ObjectiveWe aimed to establish practical lessons from the experience of our working group, which might accelerate the development of future mHealth interventions and their evaluation by randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsThis paper is based on group and expert discussions, and focuses on the researchers' perspectives after four RCTs on mHealth interventions for chronic pain.ResultsThe following five lessons are presented, which are based on practical application, increase of speed, and sustainability: (1) explore stakeholder opinions, (2) develop the mHealth app and trial simultaneously, (3) minimize complexity, (4) manage necessary resources, and (5) apply behavior change techniques.ConclusionsThe five lessons developed may lead toward an agile research environment. Agility might be the key factor in the development and research process of a potentially sustainable and evidence-based mHealth intervention.
| S-EPMC7899803 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo systematically review the literature in order to evaluate the effects of health coaching on patients' reduction of opioid usage and opioid discontinuation. In addition, this systematic review investigated the effects of health coaching on pain intensity, physical function, and quality of life.MethodsFour electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and PsychINFO) were searched from inception to December 2019. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of health coaching interventions in adult patients currently using opioids were included. We considered trials if they included any of the four defined key constructs of health coaching adopted in this review: motivational interviewing, positive psychology, the transtheoretical model, and self-determination theory Independent reviewers screened and selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) and quality of evidence using Grading, Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). The review is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) databased as CRD42019136201. It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis due to heterogeneity between included trials.ResultsEleven studies met our inclusion criteria (n = 4,516 participants). No study assessed all four constructs of health coaching. All eleven studies utilized only one of the constructs, brief motivational interviewing. Thus, we reported our results in terms of motivational interviewing. There is conflicting and very low quality of evidence that brief motivational interviewing may or may not be more effective than education to reduce opioid usage. There is very low quality of evidence that brief motivational interviewing is more effective than educational monthly diaries to reduce opioid use. There is very low to low quality of evidence that brief motivational interviewing is not more effective than no behavioral intervention to reduce opioid use at 6 months follow-up, treatment as usual (TAU) to improve overdose risk behaviors, and TAU to improve physical and psychological health.ConclusionThere is no direct evidence related to the effect of health coaching on opioid reduction. There is limited, low quality evidence to conclude brief motivational interviewing reduces opioid usage in opioid-dependent patients. Future research should focus on the impact of high theoretical health coaching interventions on opioid usage.
| S-EPMC7595321 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This article describes rationales and limitations for making inferences based on data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We argue that obtaining a representative random sample from a patient population is impossible for a clinical trial because patients are accrued sequentially over time and thus comprise a convenience sample, subject only to protocol entry criteria. Consequently, the trial's sample is unlikely to represent a definable patient population. We use causal diagrams to illustrate the difference between random allocation of interventions within a clinical trial sample and true simple or stratified random sampling, as executed in surveys. We argue that group-specific statistics, such as a median survival time estimate for a treatment arm in an RCT, have limited meaning as estimates of larger patient population parameters. In contrast, random allocation between interventions facilitates comparative causal inferences about between-treatment effects, such as hazard ratios or differences between probabilities of response. Comparative inferences also require the assumption of transportability from a clinical trial's convenience sample to a targeted patient population. We focus on the consequences and limitations of randomization procedures in order to clarify the distinctions between pairs of complementary concepts of fundamental importance to data science and RCT interpretation. These include internal and external validity, generalizability and transportability, uncertainty and variability, representativeness and inclusiveness, blocking and stratification, relevance and robustness, forward and reverse causal inference, intention to treat and per protocol analyses, and potential outcomes and counterfactuals.
| S-EPMC10571666 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Screening for Down's syndrome forms part of routine obstetric practice. Ethical considerations relating to genetic screening form a major part of the workload of research ethics committees. This study investigated the attitudes of research ethics committee members to several conditions varying in clinical severity and prognosis, including Down's syndrome. METHODS:The members of 40 randomly chosen research ethics committees were surveyed. A simple questionnaire comprising 19 clinical scenarios based around four "clinical" conditions was designed to review conditions that were potentially embarrassing, affecting life span but not mental ability, premature death, and intellectual impairment with a risk of neonatal cardiac defects (Down's syndrome). Screening tests with different degrees of effectiveness were described and the diagnostic test descriptions ranged from having no risk to an unaffected fetus to causing spontaneous abortion of two normal fetuses for each affected fetus identified. Replies were graded on a scale of 1 to 5. RESULTS:Seventy seven replies were received from 28 different research ethics committees. Screening was supported for treatment of a life threatening condition (95% in favour) but screening for conditions of a slight increase in premature death (14% in favour) or cosmetic features (10% in favour) were considered unethical. Views were ambiguous (49% in favour) about conditions involving significant shortening of lifespan. Down's syndrome screening was considered more ethical when described as a serious condition (56% in favour) than when the clinical features were described (44% in favour). Once increased rates of spontaneous abortion on confirmatory testing were added, 79% (21% in favour) and 86% (14% in favour) stated that screening was unethical (for "serious" and "clinical features" descriptions, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Down's syndrome screening raises ethical concerns about genetic testing in general that need to be dealt with before the introduction of any prenatal screening test.
| S-EPMC1769927 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We conducted meta-analyses of findings from randomized, placebo-controlled, short-term trials for acute mania in manic or mixed states of DSM (III-IV) bipolar I disorder in 56 drug-placebo comparisons of 17 agents from 38 studies involving 10,800 patients. Of drugs tested, 13 (76%) were more effective than placebo: aripiprazole, asenapine, carbamazepine, cariprazine, haloperidol, lithium, olanzapine, paliperdone, quetiapine, risperidone, tamoxifen, valproate, and ziprasidone. Their pooled effect size for mania improvement (Hedges' g in 48 trials) was 0.42 (confidence interval (CI): 0.36-0.48); pooled responder risk ratio (46 trials) was 1.52 (CI: 1.42-1.62); responder rate difference (RD) was 17% (drug: 48%, placebo: 31%), yielding an estimated number-needed-to-treat of 6 (all p<0.0001). In several direct comparisons, responses to various antipsychotics were somewhat greater or more rapid than lithium, valproate, or carbamazepine; lithium did not differ from valproate, nor did second generation antipsychotics differ from haloperidol. Meta-regression associated higher study site counts, as well as subject number with greater placebo (not drug) response; and higher baseline mania score with greater drug (not placebo) response. Most effective agents had moderate effect-sizes (Hedges' g=0.26-0.46); limited data indicated large effect sizes (Hedges' g=0.51-2.32) for: carbamazepine, cariprazine, haloperidol, risperidone, and tamoxifen. The findings support the efficacy of most clinically used antimanic treatments, but encourage more head-to-head studies and development of agents with even greater efficacy.
| S-EPMC3055677 | biostudies-other
Project description:The registration of clinical trials has been promoted to prevent publication bias and increase research transparency. Despite general agreement about the minimum amount of information needed for trial registration, we lack clear guidance on descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions in trial registries. We aimed to evaluate the quality of registry descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions assessed in ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patient education.On 6 May 2009, we searched for all ongoing RCTs registered in the 10 trial registries accessible through the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We included trials evaluating an educational intervention (that is, designed to teach or train patients about their own health) and dedicated to participants, their family members or home caregivers. We used a standardized data extraction form to collect data related to the description of the experimental intervention, the centers, and the caregivers.We selected 268 of 642 potentially eligible studies and appraised a random sample of 150 records. All selected trials were registered in 4 registers, mainly ClinicalTrials.gov (61%). The median [interquartile range] target sample size was 205 [100 to 400] patients. The comparator was mainly usual care (47%) or active treatment (47%). A minority of records (17%, 95% CI 11 to 23%) reported an overall adequate description of the intervention (that is, description that reported the content, mode of delivery, number, frequency, duration of sessions and overall duration of the intervention). Further, for most reports (59%), important information about the content of the intervention was missing. The description of the mode of delivery of the intervention was reported for 52% of studies, the number of sessions for 74%, the frequency of sessions for 58%, the duration of each session for 45% and the overall duration for 63%. Information about the caregivers was missing for 70% of trials. Most trials (73%) took place in the United States or United Kingdom, 64% involved only one centre, and participating centers were mainly tertiary-care, academic or university hospitals (51%).Educational interventions assessed in ongoing RCTs of educational interventions are poorly described in trial registries. The lack of adequate description raises doubts about the ability of trial registration to help patients and researchers know about the treatment evaluated in trials of education.
| S-EPMC3503701 | biostudies-other