Dataset Information

Sequential multiple assignment randomized trial studies should report all key components: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART) designs allow multiple randomizations of participants; this allows assessment of stage-specific questions (individual randomizations) and adaptive interventions (i.e. treatment strategies). We assessed the quality of reporting of the information required to design SMART studies.

Study design and setting

We systematically searched four databases (PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science and Scopus) for all trial reports, protocols, reviews, and methodological papers which mentioned SMART designs up to June 15, 2020.

Results

Of the 157 selected records, 12 (7.64%) were trial reports, 24 (15.29%) were study protocols, 91 (58%) were methodological papers, and 30 (19.1%) were review papers. All these trials were powered using stage-specific aims. Only four (33.33%) of these trials reported parameters required for sample size calculations. A small number of the trials (16.67 %) were interested in determining the best embedded adaptive interventions. Most of the trials did not report information about multiple testing adjustment. Furthermore, most of records reported designs that were mainly focused on stage-specific aims.

Conclusions

Some features of SMART designs are seldomly reported and/or used. Furthermore, studies using this design tend to not adequately report information about all the design parameters, limiting their transparency and interpretability.

SUBMITTER: Bigirumurame T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7613855 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sequential multiple assignment randomized trial studies should report all key components: a systematic review.

Bigirumurame Theophile T Uwimpuhwe Germaine G Wason James J

Journal of clinical epidemiology 20211108

<h4>Objective</h4>Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART) designs allow multiple randomizations of participants; this allows assessment of stage-specific questions (individual randomizations) and adaptive interventions (i.e. treatment strategies). We assessed the quality of reporting of the information required to design SMART studies.<h4>Study design and setting</h4>We systematically searched four databases (PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science and Scopus) for all trial reports, protoco ...[more]

PMID: 34763037

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceNearly half of the 14.8 million US adults eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) smoke cigarettes. The optimal smoking cessation program components for the LCS setting are unclear.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of adding a referral to prescription medication therapy management (MTM) to the tobacco longitudinal care (TLC) program among patients eligible for LCS who smoke and do not respond to early tobacco treatment and to assess the effect of decreasing the intensity of TLC among participants who do respond to early treatment.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial included patients who currently smoked cigarettes daily and were eligible for LCS. Recruitment took place at primary care centers and LCS programs at 3 large health systems in the US and began in October 2016, and 18-month follow-up was completed April 2021.Interventions(1) TLC comprising intensive telephone coaching and combination nicotine replacement therapy for 1 year with at least monthly contact; (2) TLC with MTM, MTM offered pharmacist-referral for prescription medications; and (3) Quarterly TLC, intensity of TLC was decreased to quarterly contact. Intervention assignments were based on early response to tobacco treatment (abstinence) that was assessed either 4 weeks or 8 weeks after treatment initiation.Main outcomes and measuresSelf-reported, 6-month prolonged abstinence at 18-month.ResultsOf 636 participants, 228 (35.9%) were female, 564 (89.4%) were White individuals, and the median (IQR) age was 64.3 (59.6-68.8) years. Four weeks or 8 weeks after treatment initiation, 510 participants (80.2%) continued to smoke (ie, early treatment nonresponders) and 126 participants (19.8%) had quit (ie, early treatment responders). The 18 month follow-up survey response rate was 83.2% (529 of 636). Across TLC groups at 18 months follow-up, the overall 6-month prolonged abstinence rate was 24.4% (129 of 529). Among the 416 early treatment nonresponders, 6-month prolonged abstinence for TLC with MTM vs TLC was 17.8% vs 16.4% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.13; 95% CI, 0.67-1.89). In TLC with MTM, 98 of 254 participants (39%) completed at least 1 MTM visit. Among 113 early treatment responders, 6-month prolonged abstinence for Quarterly TLC vs TLC was 24 of 55 (43.6%) vs 34 of 58 (58.6%) (aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.25-1.17).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, adding referral to MTM with TLC for participants who did not respond to early treatment did not improve smoking abstinence. Stepping down to Quarterly TLC among early treatment responders is not recommended. Integrating longitudinal tobacco cessation care with LCS is feasible and associated with clinically meaningful quit rates.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02597491.

Dataset Information

Sequential multiple assignment randomized trial studies should report all key components: a systematic review.

Objective

Study design and setting

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Sequential multiple assignment randomized trial studies should report all key components: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets