Outcome Assessment by Central Adjudicators Versus Site Investigators in Stroke Trials

Author:

Godolphin Peter J.12,Bath Philip M.2,Algra Ale34,Berge Eivind5,Brown Martin M.6,Chalmers John7,Duley Lelia1,Eliasziw Misha8,Gregson John9,Greving Jacoba P.4,Hankey Graeme J.10,Hosomi Naohisa11,Johnston S. Claiborne12,Patsko Emily13,Ranta Annamarei14,Sandset Per Morten15,Serena Joaquín16,Weimar Christian17,Montgomery Alan A.1,Knipp S.C.,Giugliano R.P.,Bonati L.H.,Nagai Y.,Matsumoto M.,Barnett H.J.M.,Fox A.J.,Farrant M.,Easton J.D.,Elm J.J.,Neal B.,Arima H.,Dávalos A.,Amarenco P.,Evans S.,Sprigg N.,Dineen R.,Eikelboom J.W.,Chen C.

Affiliation:

1. From the Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit (P.J.G., L.D., A.A.M.), University of Nottingham, United Kingdom

2. Stroke Trials Unit, Division of Clinical Neuroscience (P.J.G., P.M.B.), University of Nottingham, United Kingdom

3. Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery (A.A.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands

4. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care (A.A., J.P.G.), University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands

5. Department of Internal Medicine (E.B.), Oslo University Hospital, Norway

6. Stroke Research Group, UCL Institute of Neurology, UCL, London, United Kingdom (M.M.B.)

7. The George Institute for Global Health, University of NSW, Sydney, Australia (J.C.)

8. Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University, Boston, MA (M.E.)

9. Department of Medical Statistics, LSHTM, London, United Kingdom (J.G.)

10. Medical School, The University of Western Australia, Perth (G.J.H.)

11. Department of Clinical Neuroscience and Therapeutics, Hiroshima University Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Japan (N.H.)

12. Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin (S.C.J.)

13. Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, United Kingdom (E.P.)

14. University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand (A.R.)

15. Department of Haematology (P.M.S.), Oslo University Hospital, Norway

16. Department of Neurology, Stroke Unit, Hospital Josep Trueta, IDIBGI, Girona, Spain (J.S.)

17. Universitätsklinikum Essen, Klinik für Neurologie, Essen, Germany (C.W.).

Abstract

Background and Purpose— In randomized stroke trials, central adjudication of a trial’s primary outcome is regularly implemented. However, recent evidence questions the importance of central adjudication in randomized trials. The aim of this review was to compare outcomes assessed by central adjudicators with outcomes assessed by site investigators. Methods— We included randomized stroke trials where the primary outcome had undergone an assessment by site investigators and central adjudicators. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar for eligible studies. We extracted information about the adjudication process as well as the treatment effect for the primary outcome, assessed both by central adjudicators and by site investigators. We calculated the ratio of these treatment effects so that a ratio of these treatment effects >1 indicated that central adjudication resulted in a more beneficial treatment effect than assessment by the site investigator. A random-effects meta-analysis model was fitted to estimate a pooled effect. Results— Fifteen trials, comprising 69 560 participants, were included. The primary outcomes included were stroke (8/15, 53%), a composite event including stroke (6/15, 40%) and functional outcome after stroke measured on the modified Rankin Scale (1/15, 7%). The majority of site investigators were blind to treatment allocation (9/15, 60%). On average, there was no difference in treatment effect estimates based on data from central adjudicators and site investigators (pooled ratio of these treatment effects=1.02; 95% CI, [0.95–1.09]). Conclusions— We found no evidence that central adjudication of the primary outcome in stroke trials had any impact on trial conclusions. This suggests that potential advantages of central adjudication may not outweigh cost and time disadvantages in stroke studies if the primary purpose of adjudication is to ensure validity of trial findings.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Advanced and Specialized Nursing,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine,Neurology (clinical)

Cited by 13 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3