Does industry funding and study location impact findings from randomized controlled trials of spinal cord stimulation? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE: Concerns have been raised that effects observed in studies of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) funded by industry have not been replicated in non-industry-funded studies and that findings may differ based on geographical location where the study was conducted. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of industry funding and geographical location on pain intensity, function, health-related quality of life and adverse events reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Systematic review conducted using MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE and WikiStim databases until September 2022. Parallel-group RCTs evaluating SCS for patients with neuropathic pain were included. Results of studies were combined in random-effects meta-analysis using the generic-inverse variance method. Subgroup meta-analyses were conducted according to funding source and study location. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. FINDINGS: Twenty-nine reports of 17 RCTs (1823 participants) were included. For the comparison of SCS with usual care, test for subgroup differences indicate no significant differences (p=0.48, moderate certainty evidence) in pain intensity score at 6 months for studies with no funding or funding not disclosed (pooled mean difference (MD) -1.96 (95% CI -3.23 to -0.69; 95% prediction interval (PI) not estimable, I2=0%, τ2=0)), industry funding (pooled MD -2.70 (95% CI -4.29 to -1.11; 95% PI -8.75 to 3.35, I2=97%, τ2=2.96) or non-industry funding (MD -3.09 (95% CI -4.47 to -1.72); 95% PI, I2 and τ2 not applicable). Studies with industry funding for the comparison of high-frequency SCS (HF-SCS) with low-frequency SCS (LF-SCS) showed statistically significant advantages for HF-SCS compared to LF-SCS while studies with no funding showed no differences between HF-SCS and LF-SCS (low certainty evidence). CONCLUSION: All outcomes of SCS versus usual care were not significantly different between studies funded by industry and those independent from industry. Pain intensity score and change in pain intensity from baseline for comparisons of HF-SCS to LF-SCS seem to be impacted by industry funding.

Sample size calculations in high-profile surgical trials that use patient-reported outcome measures: systematic review.

Sample size calculations from high-profile surgical RCTs that used a patient-reported outcome measure as primary outcome were reviewed systematically against Difference ELicitation in TriAls (DELTA2) standards, with a focus on target differences. In this sample of trials, there was frequent use of suboptimal methods to determine the target difference, and sample size calculations were generally not reported to DELTA2 standards. This risks over-recruitment and/or erroneous trial conclusions, which clinicians should be aware of when interpreting published trials.

Financial relationships between industry and principal investigators of US cooperative group randomized cancer clinical trials.

Financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) could bias the potentially practice-changing oncologic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of tomorrow. This investigation characterized the FCOIs of the principal investigators (PIs) of all currently accruing trials of the four (adult) cooperative groups of the National Clinical Trials Network. For our study, the PI list was first compiled, and each name was then searched in the CMS Open Payments database. For each transaction (general payments (GPs) or research funding (RF)), the amount/number/source of payments was recorded. Results showed that from 2014 to 2019, the 91 PIs collectively accepted nearly one-third of a billion dollars ($10 477 023 GPs and $320 096 233 RF). The mean and median GP was $6505 and $945, respectively, and $301 693 and $49 824 RF, respectively. Multivariable Gamma regression analysis revealed that higher GP sums were associated with RCTs involving any type of systemic therapy, and higher RF sums with medical oncologist PIs, trials with phase III components, and RCTs involving radiotherapy (P < .05 for all). Both higher-volume GPs and RF were predicted by PIs having accepted payment(s) from the manufacturer of the drug utilized in their RCT (P < .001 GP, P = .008 RF). Taken together, the main message of this investigation is that FCOIs may be particularly high in PIs of phase III systemic therapy trials, especially if the PI accepted payments from the manufacturer of the drug utilized in their trial. Such RCTs should be thoroughly scrutinized by medical journals, the FDA, and insurance companies for potential "industry bias" that could influence the integrity of their conclusions.

Late Pregnancy Ultrasound to Screen for and Manage Potential Birth Complications in Nulliparous Women: A Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fetal growth restriction is a major risk factor for stillbirth. A routine late-pregnancy ultrasound scan could help detect this, allowing intervention to reduce the risk of stillbirth. Such a scan could also detect fetal presentation and predict macrosomia. A trial powered to detect stillbirth differences would be extremely large and expensive. OBJECTIVES: It is therefore critical to know whether this would be a good investment of public research funds. The aim of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various late-pregnancy screening and management strategies based on current information and predict the return on investment from further research. METHODS: Synthesis of current evidence structured into a decision model reporting expected costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and net benefit over 20 years and value-of-information analysis reporting predicted return on investment from future clinical trials. RESULTS: Given a willingness to pay of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, the most cost-effective strategy is a routine presentation-only scan for all women. Universal ultrasound screening for fetal size is unlikely to be cost-effective. Research exploring the cost implications of induction of labor has the greatest predicted return on investment. A randomized, controlled trial with an endpoint of stillbirth is extremely unlikely to be a value for money investment. CONCLUSION: Given current value-for-money thresholds in the United Kingdom, the most cost-effective strategy is to offer all pregnant women a presentation-only scan in late pregnancy. A randomized, controlled trial of screening and intervention to reduce the risk of stillbirth following universal ultrasound to detect macrosomia or fetal growth restriction is unlikely to represent a value for money investment.

The reporting of coenrolment in protocols of publicly funded randomized controlled trials was infrequent and variable.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the approach to participant coenrolment in publicly funded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to consider its impact on study recruitment. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional study of the UK National Institute for Health Research Journals Library was undertaken. RCTs funded between 2010 and 2019 were eligible. The reporting of coenrolment criteria was assessed through inspection of publicly available study protocols. Where present, the approach to coenrolment was examined, including circumstances in which it was permitted/prohibited and the mechanism for decision-making. For completed RCTs, the impact on recruitment was explored by comparing rates of early recruitment (completion before the expected end date) and extensions (completion after the expected end date) between studies, which did and did not permit coenrolment. RESULTS: Of 219 eligible protocols, coenrolment was addressed in 94 (42.9%). Twenty-three (24.5%) of these did not allow recruitment to multiple studies, while 71 (75.5%) permitted it according to a series of caveats, including considerations of study outcomes, intervention type, and patient burden. The final decision for coenrolment rested with the local recruitment team in 57 (60.6%) and with the central organizing team in 37 (39.4%). Early completion of recruitment occurred in 8 of 64 (12.5%) RCTs where coenrolment was permitted and 5 of 20 (25.0%) where it was not (P = 0.285). An extension to recruitment time was required in 31 of 64 (48.4%) RCTs where coenrolment was permitted and 9 of 11 (45.0%) where it was not (P = 0.788). CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of coenrolment in protocols of publicly funded RCTs is infrequent, and where present, the approach to decision-making is widely variable. In this study, policies of coenrolment were not associated with gains in trial recruitment.

Evidence Supporting the Value of Surgical Procedures: Can We Do Better?

There is an acknowledged need for higher-quality evidence to quantify the benefit of surgical procedures, yet not enough has been done to improve the evidence base. This lack of evidence can prevent fully informed decision-making, lead to unnecessary or even harmful treatment, and contribute to wasteful expenditures of scare health care resources. Barriers to evidence generation include not only the long-recognized technical difficulties and ethical challenges of conducting randomized surgical trials, but also legal challenges that limit incentives to conduct surgical research as well as market-based challenges that make it difficult for those funding surgical research to recoup investment costs. These legal and market dynamics differ substantially from those surrounding new drug or device development. Nevertheless, obstacles could be overcome and overall expenditures could be reduced if a share of federal health care agency budgets were reallocated to generating randomized trial data, standardizing outcome measures, and conducting observational studies analogous to those that have been facilitated for drugs via the Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel Initiative. Until better quality evidence is available, ethical principles require adequate disclosure of the limited evidence base supporting current surgical procedures.

Transparency in surgical randomized clinical trials: cross-sectional observational study.

BACKGROUND: RCTs provide the scientific basis upon which treatment decisions are made. To facilitate critical review, it is important that methods and results are reported transparently. The aim of this study was to explore transparency in surgical RCTs with respect to trial registration, disclosure of funding sources, declarations of investigator conflicts and data-sharing. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional review of published surgical RCTs. Ten high-impact journals were searched systematically for RCTs published in years 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2018. Four domains of transparency were explored: trial registration, disclosure of funding, disclosure of investigator conflicts, and a statement relating to data-sharing. RESULTS: Of 611 RCTs, 475 were eligible for analysis. Some 397 RCTs (83.6 per cent) were registered on a trial database, of which 190 (47·9 per cent) had been registered prospectively. Prospective registration increased over time (26 per cent in 2009, 33·0 per cent in 2012, 54 per cent in 2015, and 72·7 per cent in 2018). Funding disclosure was present in 55·0, 65·0, 69·4 and 75·4 per cent of manuscripts respectively. Conflict of interest disclosure was present in 49·5, 89·1, 94·6 and 98·3 per cent of manuscripts across the same time periods. Data-sharing statements were present in only 15 RCTs (3·2 per cent), 11 of which were published in 2018. CONCLUSION: Trial registration, disclosure of funding and disclosure of investigator conflicts in surgical RCTs have improved markedly over the past 10 years. Disclosure of data-sharing plans is exceptionally low. This may contribute to research waste and represents a target for improvement.

ANTECEDENTES: Los ensayos clínicos aleatorizados y controlados (randomized controlled trials, RCT) proporcionan la base científica para la toma de decisiones terapéuticas. Es importante que los métodos y los resultados se presenten de forma transparente para facilitar la revisión crítica. El objetivo de este estudio fue investigar la transparencia en los RCTs del ámbito quirúrgico según su registro, declaraciones de las fuentes de financiación del estudio y conflicto de interés de los investigadores, así como información referente a compartir los datos. MÉTODOS: Revisión transversal de RCTs quirúrgicos publicados. Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática de los RCTs publicados en 10 revistas de alto impacto en los años 2009, 2012, 2015 y 2018. Se exploraron cuatro dominios de transparencia: el registro de los ensayos, la declaración de los fondos utilizados, la declaración de los conflictos de los investigadores y la información referente a la forma de compartir los datos. RESULTADOS: De 611 RCTs, se incluyeron en el análisis 475. Un total de 397 (83,6%) estudios se registraron en una base de datos de ensayos clínicos, de forma prospectiva en 190 (47,9%). El registro prospectivo aumentó a lo largo del tiempo (26,0% en 2009, 33,0% en 2012, 53,5% en 2015 y 72,7% en 2018). Se mencionaban las fuentes de financiación en el 55%, 65%, 69,4% y 75,4% de los manuscritos, respectivamente. La declaración de conflictos de interés estuvo presente en el 49,5%, 89,1%, 94,6% y 98,3% de los manuscritos en esos mismos períodos de tiempo. Las declaraciones relativas a compartir los datos de la investigación constaban en solo 15 (3,2%) RCTs, 11 de los cuales fueron publicados en el 2018. CONCLUSIÓN: En los últimos 10 años ha mejorado de forma notable el registro de los ensayos y las declaraciones de las fuentes de financiación y conflicto de interés en los RCTs quirúrgicos. La declaración referente a compartir los datos es excepcionalmente baja, lo que puede contribuir al desperdicio de la investigación y constituye un objetivo de mejora.

Health economic design for cost, cost-effectiveness and simulation analyses in the HEALing Communities Study.

BACKGROUND: The HEALing Communities Study (HCS) is designed to implement and evaluate the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention, a conceptually driven framework to assist communities in selecting and adopting evidence-based practices to reduce opioid overdose deaths. The goal of the HCS is to produce generalizable information for policy makers and community stakeholders seeking to implement CTH or a similar community intervention. To support this objective, one aim of the HCS is a health economics study (HES), the results of which will inform decisions around fiscal feasibility and sustainability relevant to other community settings. METHODS: The HES is integrated into the HCS design: an unblinded, multisite, parallel arm, cluster randomized, wait list-controlled trial of the CTH intervention implemented in 67 communities in four U.S. states: Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio. The objectives of the HES are to estimate the economic costs to communities of implementing and sustaining CTH; estimate broader societal costs associated with CTH; estimate the cost-effectiveness of CTH for overdose deaths avoided; and use simulation modeling to evaluate the short- and long-term health and economic impact of CTH, including future overdose deaths avoided and quality-adjusted life years saved, and to develop a simulation policy tool for communities that seek to implement CTH or a similar community intervention. DISCUSSION: The HCS offers an unprecedented opportunity to conduct health economics research on solutions to the opioid crisis and to increase understanding of the impact and value of complex, community-level interventions.

Computers, confounding, clusters, consent, cost, COVID and consultation: how the Health and Disability Code impedes the learning health system.

The Health and Disability Code precludes any research involving a competent patient without the informed consent of the participant. A learning health system requires rigorous evaluation of both new and established clinical practice, including low-risk components of usual care pathways. When comparing two accepted practices, the only way to control for unknown confounders is by randomisation. In some limited circumstances, particularly when comparing groups or clusters of patients, this comparison can only practicably be undertaken without consent. The current Code impedes a learning health system and is detrimental to the health of New Zealanders. It urgently needs updating.

Yields and costs of recruitment methods with participant phenotypic characteristics for a diabetes prevention research study in an underrepresented pediatric population.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Prediabetes and diabetes disproportionately impact Latino youth, yet few diabetes prevention programs have prioritized inclusion of this underrepresented population. This report describes the recruitment process, yields, associated costs, and phenotypic characteristics of Latino youth with obesity and prediabetes enrolled in a randomized controlled diabetes prevention study in the USA. METHODS: Recruitment efforts included referrals from clinics, community outlets, local media, and word of mouth with the goal of enrolling 120 Latino adolescents aged 12-16 with obesity (BMI > 95th percentile) and prediabetes. Prediabetes eligibility was determined by any of the following: HbA1c between 5.7 and 6.5%, fasting glucose between 100 and 125 mg/dL, or a 2-h glucose between 120 and 199 mg/dL following a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), but not meeting any of the diagnostic criteria for diabetes. Eligible participants were randomized 2:1 to either a 6-month community-based lifestyle intervention that included group nutrition and health education classes (1 day/week) and group exercise classes (2 days/week) or usual care control arm. Recruitment yields were determined by review of referral source in the study screening database. Recruitment costs were determined by an after-the-fact financial review of actual and in-kind costs. Participant phenotypic characteristics (i.e., demographics, anthropometrics, and biochemical data) were compared by recruitment strategy using a one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: Recruitment efforts covered 160 mile2 (414 km2) across 26 ZIP codes (postcode) in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area and yielded 655 referrals from clinics (n = 344), community (n = 143), media (n = 137), and word-of-mouth (n = 31). From this pool, 26% (n = 167) did not meet general, pre-screening eligibility criteria; 29% (n = 187) declined participation; and 10% (n = 64) were unable to be contacted. A total of 237 youth were invited to the clinical research unit to determine final eligibility. Following the OGTT, 52% (n = 122) met prediabetes criteria and 117 were subsequently randomized. Clinical recruitment yielded the highest number of referrals (53%; n = 344) while word-of-mouth yielded the highest proportion (35%; n = 11) of randomized participants per referred youth. There were no significant differences in anthropometric or biochemical measures among youth by recruitment strategy. Based upon final enrollment numbers, community recruitment was the costliest approach ($486/randomized participant) followed by clinical ($248/randomized participant) and media ($236/randomized participant). CONCLUSIONS: The ability to meet enrollment goals for a clinical trial of an underrepresented population required multiple recruitment strategies. Although strategies vary in yields and costs, it appears they produce similar phenotypical risk profiles of eligible youth. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02615353 . Registered on 26 November 2015.

Funders' data-sharing policies in therapeutic research: A survey of commercial and non-commercial funders.

BACKGROUND: Funders are key players in supporting randomized controlled trial (RCT) data-sharing. This research aimed to describe commercial and non-commercial funders' data-sharing policies and to assess the compliance of funded RCTs with the existing data-sharing policies. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Funders of clinical research having funded at least one RCT in the years 2016 to 2018 were surveyed. All 78 eligible non-commercial funders retrieved from the Sherpa/Juliet Initiative website and a random sample of 100 commercial funders selected from pharmaceutical association member lists (LEEM, IFPMA, EFPIA) and the top 100 pharmaceutical companies in terms of drug sales were included. Thirty (out of 78; 38%) non-commercial funders had a data-sharing policy with eighteen (out of 30, 60%) making data-sharing mandatory and twelve (40%) encouraging data-sharing. Forty-one (out of 100; 41%) of commercial funders had a data-sharing policy. Among funders with a data-sharing policy, a survey of two random samples of 100 RCTs registered on Clinicaltrial.gov, data-sharing statements were present for seventy-seven (77%, 95% IC [67%-84%]) and eighty-one (81% [72% - 88%]) of RCTs funded by non-commercial and commercial funders respectively. Intention to share data was expressed in 12% [7%-20%] and 59% [49%- 69%] of RCTs funded by non-commercial and commercial funders respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This survey identified suboptimal performances of funders in setting up data-sharing policies. For those with a data-sharing policy, the implementation of the policy in study registration was limited for commercial funders and of concern for non-commercial funders. The limitations of the present study include its cross-sectional nature, since data-sharing policies are continuously changing. We call for a standardization of policies with a strong evaluation component to make sure that, when in place, these policies are effective.

Cost-benefit of outcome adjudication in nine randomised stroke trials.

BACKGROUND: Central adjudication of outcomes is common for randomised trials and should control for differential misclassification. However, few studies have estimated the cost of the adjudication process. METHODS: We estimated the cost of adjudicating the primary outcome in nine randomised stroke trials (25,436 participants). The costs included adjudicators' time, direct payments to adjudicators, and co-ordinating centre costs (e.g. uploading cranial scans and general set-up costs). The number of events corrected after adjudication was our measure of benefit. We calculated cost per corrected event for each trial and in total. RESULTS: The primary outcome in all nine trials was either stroke or a composite that included stroke. In total, the adjudication process associated with this primary outcome cost in excess of £100,000 for a third of the trials (3/9). Mean cost per event corrected by adjudication was £2295.10 (SD: £1482.42). CONCLUSIONS: Central adjudication is a time-consuming and potentially costly process. These costs need to be considered when designing a trial and should be evaluated alongside the potential benefits adjudication brings to determine whether they outweigh this expense.

Photobiomodulation in oral mucositis in patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis followed by a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis (OM) is an oral toxicity caused by cancer treatment, found often in patients with head and neck cancer. Low-intensity laser therapy for OM has anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and tissue reparative properties. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized clinical trials of OM laser therapy in patients undergoing treatment for head and neck cancers, followed by a cost-effectiveness analysis of the therapy. METHOD: The search terms, mucositis and phototherapy, laser therapy and mucositis, photobiomodulation and mucositis, and low-level laser therapy and mucositis, were used to search the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, and MEDLINE. Randomized clinical trials were divided into two groups: one treated with laser therapy and the other given a placebo. Only 13 studies were included in the systematic review, and 6 studies in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: The results of the systematic review and meta-analysis show that the laser therapy presented good results in clinical improvement and pain reduction, decreasing the patients' likelihood of developing OM, with degrees of debilitating lesions, to 64% (RR = 0.36 [95% CI = 0.29-0.44]). The cost-effectiveness analysis revealed an incremental cost of R$ 3687.53 for the laser group, with an incremental effectiveness of 132.2. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 27.89, for the severe OM cases that were avoided. CONCLUSION: It was concluded, therefore, that photobiomodulation for OM in patients receiving head and neck cancer treatment was clinically effective and cost-effective.

Randomized trial shows healthcare payment reform has equal-sized spillover effects on patients not targeted by reform.

Changes in the way health insurers pay healthcare providers may not only directly affect the insurer's patients but may also affect patients covered by other insurers. We provide evidence of such spillovers in the context of a nationwide Medicare bundled payment reform that was implemented in some areas of the country but not in others, via random assignment. We estimate that the payment reform-which targeted traditional Medicare patients-had effects of similar magnitude on the healthcare experience of nontargeted, privately insured Medicare Advantage patients. We discuss the implications of these findings for estimates of the impact of healthcare payment reforms and more generally for the design of healthcare policy.

Practical challenges in the conduct of pragmatic trials embedded in health plans: Lessons of IMPACT-AFib, an FDA-Catalyst trial.

IMPACT-AFib was an 80,000-patient randomized clinical trial implemented by five US insurance companies (health plans) aimed at increasing the use of oral anticoagulants by individuals with atrial fibrillation who were at high risk of stroke and not on treatment. The underlying thesis was that patients could be change agents to initiate prescribing discussions with their providers. We tested the effect of mailing information to both patients and their providers. We used administrative medical claims and pharmacy dispensing data to identify eligible patients, to randomize them to an early or delayed intervention, and to assess clinical outcomes. The core data were analysis-ready datasets each site had created and curated for the FDA's Sentinel System, supplemented by updated "fresh" pharmacy and enrollment data to ensure eligibility at the time of intervention. Following mutually agreed upon procedures, sites linked to additional internal source data to implement the intervention-educational information mailed to patients and their providers in the early intervention arm, and to providers of patients in the delayed intervention arm approximately 12 months later. The primary analysis compares the early intervention arm to the delayed intervention arm, prior to the delayed intervention being conducted (i.e. compares intervention to non-intervention). The endpoints of interest were evidence of initiation of anticoagulation (primary) as well as clinical endpoints, including stroke and hospitalization for bleeding. Major challenges, some unanticipated, identified during the planning phase include convening multi-stakeholder investigator teams and advisors, addressing ethical concerns about not intervening in a usual care comparison group, and identifying and avoiding interference with sites' routine programs that were similar to the intervention. Needs and challenges during the implementation phase included the fact that even limited site-specific programming greatly increased time and effort, the need to refresh research data extracts immediately before outreach to patients and providers, potential difficulty identifying low-cost medications such as warfarin that may not be reimbursed by health plans and so not discoverable in dispensing data, the need to develop workarounds when "providers" in claims data were facilities, difficulty addressing clustering of patients by provider because providers can have multiple identifiers within and between health plans, and the need to anticipate loss to follow up because of health plan disenrollment or change in benefits. As pragmatic trials begin to shape evidence generation within clinical practice, investigators should anticipate issues inherent to claims data and working with multiple large sites. In IMPACT-AFib, we found that investing in collaboration and communication among all parties throughout all phases of the study helped ensure common understanding, early identification of challenges, and streamlined actual implementation.

Characteristics of Contemporary Randomized Clinical Trials and Their Association With the Trial Funding Source in Invasive Cardiovascular Interventions.

Importance: Changes in evidence-based practice and guideline recommendations depend on high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Commercial device and pharmaceutical manufacturers are frequently involved in the funding, design, conduct, and reporting of trials, the implications of which have not been recently analyzed. Objective: To evaluate the design, outcomes, and reporting of contemporary randomized clinical trials of invasive cardiovascular interventions and their association with the funding source. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed published RCTs between January 1, 2008, to May 31, 2019. The trials included those involving coronary, vascular and structural interventional cardiology, and vascular and cardiac surgical procedures. Main Outcomes and Measures: We assessed (1) trial characteristics, (2) finding of a statistically significant difference in the primary end point favoring the experimental intervention, (3) reporting of implied treatment advantage in trials without significant differences in primary end point, (4) existence of major discrepancies between registered and published primary outcomes, (5) number of patients whose outcomes would need to switch from a nonevent to an event to convert a significant difference in primary end point to nonsignificant, and (6) association with funding source. Results: Of the 216 RCTs analyzed, 115 (53.2%) reported having commercial sponsorship. Most trials had 80% power to detect an estimated treatment effect of 30%, and 128 trials (59.3%) used composite primary end points. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) sample size was 502 (204-1702) patients, and the median (IQR) follow-up duration was 12 (1.0-14.4) months. Overall, 123 trials (57.0%) reported a statistically significant difference in the primary outcome favoring the experimental intervention; reporting strategies that implied an advantage were identified in 55 (65.5%) of 84 trials that reported nonsignificant differences. Commercial sponsorship was associated with a statistically significantly greater likelihood of favorable outcomes reporting (exponent of regression coefficient ß, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.09-7.18; P = .03) and with the reporting of findings that are inconsistent with the trial results. Discrepancies between the registered and published primary outcomes were found in 82 trials (38.0%), without differences in trial sponsorship. A median (IQR) number of 5 (2.8-12.5) patients experiencing a different outcome would have change statistically significant results to nonsignificant. Commercial sponsorship was associated with a greater number of patients (exponent of regression coefficient ß, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.00-1.66; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that contemporary RCTs of invasive cardiovascular interventions are relatively small and fragile, have short follow-up, and have limited power to detect large treatment effects. Commercial support appeared to be associated with differences in trial design, results, and reporting.

Digital tools for the recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a systematic map.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting and retaining participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging. Digital tools, such as social media, data mining, email or text-messaging, could improve recruitment or retention, but an overview of this research area is lacking. We aimed to systematically map the characteristics of digital recruitment and retention tools for RCTs, and the features of the comparative studies that have evaluated the effectiveness of these tools during the past 10 years. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, other databases, the Internet, and relevant web sites in July 2018 to identify comparative studies of digital tools for recruiting and/or retaining participants in health RCTs. Two reviewers independently screened references against protocol-specified eligibility criteria. Included studies were coded by one reviewer with 20% checked by a second reviewer, using pre-defined keywords to describe characteristics of the studies, populations and digital tools evaluated. RESULTS: We identified 9163 potentially relevant references, of which 104 articles reporting 105 comparative studies were included in the systematic map. The number of published studies on digital tools has doubled in the past decade, but most studies evaluated digital tools for recruitment rather than retention. The key health areas investigated were health promotion, cancers, circulatory system diseases and mental health. Few studies focussed on minority or under-served populations, and most studies were observational. The most frequently-studied digital tools were social media, Internet sites, email and tv/radio for recruitment; and email and text-messaging for retention. One quarter of the studies measured efficiency (cost per recruited or retained participant) but few studies have evaluated people's attitudes towards the use of digital tools. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic map highlights a number of evidence gaps and may help stakeholders to identify and prioritise further research needs. In particular, there is a need for rigorous research on the efficiency of the digital tools and their impact on RCT participants and investigators, perhaps as studies-within-a-trial (SWAT) research. There is also a need for research into how digital tools may improve participant retention in RCTs which is currently underrepresented relative to recruitment research. REGISTRATION: Not registered; based on a pre-specified protocol, peer-reviewed by the project's Advisory Board.