The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Treatment success in pragmatic randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded by the UK Health Technology Assessment programme

Treatment success in pragmatic randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded by the UK Health Technology Assessment programme
Treatment success in pragmatic randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded by the UK Health Technology Assessment programme
Background: Previous research reviewed treatment success and whether the collective uncertainty principle is met
in RCTs in the US National Cancer Institute portfolio. This paper classifies clinical trials funded by the UK HTA
programme by results using the method applied to the US Cancer Institute trials, and compares the two portfolios.

Methods: Data on all completed randomised controlled trials funded by the HTA programme 1993-2008 were extracted. Each trial’s primary results was classified into six categories; 1) statistically significant in favour of the new treatment, 2) statistically significant in favour of the control treatment 3) true negative, 4) truly inconclusive, 5) inconclusive in favour of new treatment or 6) inconclusive in favour of control treatment. Trials were classified by comparing the 95% confidence interval for the difference in primary outcome to the difference specified in the sample size calculation. The results were compared with Djulbegovic’s analysis of NCI trials.

Results: Data from 51 superiority trials were included, involving over 48,000 participants and a range of diseases
and interventions. 85 primary comparisons were available because some trials had more than two randomised arms or had several primary outcomes. The new treatment had superior results (whether significant or not) in 61%
of the comparisons (52/85 95% CI 49.9% to 71.6%). The results were conclusive in 46% of the comparisons (19%
statistically significant in favour of the new treatment, 5% statistically significant in favour of the control and 22% true negative). The results were classified as truly inconclusive (i.e. failed to answer the question asked) for 24% of comparisons (20/85). HTA trials included fewer truly inconclusive and statistically significant results and more results rated as true negative than NCI trials.

Conclusions: The pattern of results in HTA trials is similar to that of the National Cancer Institute portfolio.
Differences that existed were plausible given the differences in the types of trials -HTA trials are more pragmatic. The results indicate HTA trials are compatible with equipoise. This classification usefully summarises the results from clinical trials and enables comparisons of different portfolios of trials.
1745-6215
109
Dent, Louise
f10597da-079e-4140-8600-eb3f91f7227c
Raftery, James
27c2661d-6c4f-448a-bf36-9a89ec72bd6b
Dent, Louise
f10597da-079e-4140-8600-eb3f91f7227c
Raftery, James
27c2661d-6c4f-448a-bf36-9a89ec72bd6b

Dent, Louise and Raftery, James (2011) Treatment success in pragmatic randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded by the UK Health Technology Assessment programme. Trials, 12, 109. (doi:10.1186/1745-6215-12-109).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: Previous research reviewed treatment success and whether the collective uncertainty principle is met
in RCTs in the US National Cancer Institute portfolio. This paper classifies clinical trials funded by the UK HTA
programme by results using the method applied to the US Cancer Institute trials, and compares the two portfolios.

Methods: Data on all completed randomised controlled trials funded by the HTA programme 1993-2008 were extracted. Each trial’s primary results was classified into six categories; 1) statistically significant in favour of the new treatment, 2) statistically significant in favour of the control treatment 3) true negative, 4) truly inconclusive, 5) inconclusive in favour of new treatment or 6) inconclusive in favour of control treatment. Trials were classified by comparing the 95% confidence interval for the difference in primary outcome to the difference specified in the sample size calculation. The results were compared with Djulbegovic’s analysis of NCI trials.

Results: Data from 51 superiority trials were included, involving over 48,000 participants and a range of diseases
and interventions. 85 primary comparisons were available because some trials had more than two randomised arms or had several primary outcomes. The new treatment had superior results (whether significant or not) in 61%
of the comparisons (52/85 95% CI 49.9% to 71.6%). The results were conclusive in 46% of the comparisons (19%
statistically significant in favour of the new treatment, 5% statistically significant in favour of the control and 22% true negative). The results were classified as truly inconclusive (i.e. failed to answer the question asked) for 24% of comparisons (20/85). HTA trials included fewer truly inconclusive and statistically significant results and more results rated as true negative than NCI trials.

Conclusions: The pattern of results in HTA trials is similar to that of the National Cancer Institute portfolio.
Differences that existed were plausible given the differences in the types of trials -HTA trials are more pragmatic. The results indicate HTA trials are compatible with equipoise. This classification usefully summarises the results from clinical trials and enables comparisons of different portfolios of trials.

Full text not available from this repository.

More information

Published date: 4 May 2011
Organisations: Faculty of Medicine, Clinical Trials Unit

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 354799
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/354799
ISSN: 1745-6215
PURE UUID: 28f5b561-b239-4da7-9f76-4bb0a44ddd48

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 23 Jul 2013 08:51
Last modified: 16 Jul 2019 21:28

Export record

Altmetrics

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×