Cargando…

Assessment of research waste part 2: wrong study populations- an exemplar of baseline vitamin D status of participants in trials of vitamin D supplementation

BACKGROUND: Research waste can occur when trials are conducted in the wrong populations. Vitamin D deficient populations are most likely to benefit from vitamin D supplementation. We investigated waste attributable to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of supplementation in populations that were no...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bolland, Mark J., Grey, Andrew, Avenell, Alison
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6171194/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30285729
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0555-1
_version_ 1783360746600529920
author Bolland, Mark J.
Grey, Andrew
Avenell, Alison
author_facet Bolland, Mark J.
Grey, Andrew
Avenell, Alison
author_sort Bolland, Mark J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Research waste can occur when trials are conducted in the wrong populations. Vitamin D deficient populations are most likely to benefit from vitamin D supplementation. We investigated waste attributable to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of supplementation in populations that were not vitamin D deficient. METHODS: In December 2015, we searched Pubmed, recent systematic reviews, and three trial registries for RCTs of vitamin D with clinical endpoints in adults, and 25-hydroxvitamin D (25OHD) survey data relevant to large (N ≥ 1000) RCTs. We investigated the proportion of RCTs that studied vitamin D deficient populations, temporal trends in baseline 25OHD, and whether investigators in large RCTs considered relevant 25OHD survey data or systematic reviews in their trial justifications. RESULTS: Of 137 RCTs of vitamin D with clinical endpoints, 118 (86%) reported baseline mean/median 25OHD, which was < 25, 25–49, 50–74, and ≥ 75 nmol/L in 12 (10%), 62 (53%), 36 (31%), and 8 (7%) RCTs, respectively. In 70% of RCTs, baseline 25OHD was > 40 nmol/L. Baseline 25OHD increased over time. Before 2006, 38%, 62%, 0% and 0% of RCTs had baseline 25OHD < 25, 25–49, 50–74, and ≥ 75 nmol/L respectively; in 2011–15, the respective proportions were 9%, 49%, 37%, and 6%. Of 12 RCTs with baseline 25OHD < 25 nmol/L, 8 had neutral findings. Of 25 large RCTs (18 completed, 7 ongoing), 1 was undertaken in a vitamin D deficient population, 3 in vitamin D insufficient populations, and 17 had, or probably will have, baseline 25OHD > 40 nmol/L. 44% (8/18) of large completed RCTs cited relevant prior population 25OHD data, and only 3/10 (30%) relevant prior systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Up to 70% of RCTs of vitamin D with clinical endpoints, 71% of large completed RCTs, and 100% of ongoing large RCTs could be considered research waste because they studied cohorts that were not vitamin D deficient. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0555-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6171194
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61711942018-10-10 Assessment of research waste part 2: wrong study populations- an exemplar of baseline vitamin D status of participants in trials of vitamin D supplementation Bolland, Mark J. Grey, Andrew Avenell, Alison BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Research waste can occur when trials are conducted in the wrong populations. Vitamin D deficient populations are most likely to benefit from vitamin D supplementation. We investigated waste attributable to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of supplementation in populations that were not vitamin D deficient. METHODS: In December 2015, we searched Pubmed, recent systematic reviews, and three trial registries for RCTs of vitamin D with clinical endpoints in adults, and 25-hydroxvitamin D (25OHD) survey data relevant to large (N ≥ 1000) RCTs. We investigated the proportion of RCTs that studied vitamin D deficient populations, temporal trends in baseline 25OHD, and whether investigators in large RCTs considered relevant 25OHD survey data or systematic reviews in their trial justifications. RESULTS: Of 137 RCTs of vitamin D with clinical endpoints, 118 (86%) reported baseline mean/median 25OHD, which was < 25, 25–49, 50–74, and ≥ 75 nmol/L in 12 (10%), 62 (53%), 36 (31%), and 8 (7%) RCTs, respectively. In 70% of RCTs, baseline 25OHD was > 40 nmol/L. Baseline 25OHD increased over time. Before 2006, 38%, 62%, 0% and 0% of RCTs had baseline 25OHD < 25, 25–49, 50–74, and ≥ 75 nmol/L respectively; in 2011–15, the respective proportions were 9%, 49%, 37%, and 6%. Of 12 RCTs with baseline 25OHD < 25 nmol/L, 8 had neutral findings. Of 25 large RCTs (18 completed, 7 ongoing), 1 was undertaken in a vitamin D deficient population, 3 in vitamin D insufficient populations, and 17 had, or probably will have, baseline 25OHD > 40 nmol/L. 44% (8/18) of large completed RCTs cited relevant prior population 25OHD data, and only 3/10 (30%) relevant prior systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Up to 70% of RCTs of vitamin D with clinical endpoints, 71% of large completed RCTs, and 100% of ongoing large RCTs could be considered research waste because they studied cohorts that were not vitamin D deficient. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0555-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-10-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6171194/ /pubmed/30285729 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0555-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bolland, Mark J.
Grey, Andrew
Avenell, Alison
Assessment of research waste part 2: wrong study populations- an exemplar of baseline vitamin D status of participants in trials of vitamin D supplementation
title Assessment of research waste part 2: wrong study populations- an exemplar of baseline vitamin D status of participants in trials of vitamin D supplementation
title_full Assessment of research waste part 2: wrong study populations- an exemplar of baseline vitamin D status of participants in trials of vitamin D supplementation
title_fullStr Assessment of research waste part 2: wrong study populations- an exemplar of baseline vitamin D status of participants in trials of vitamin D supplementation
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of research waste part 2: wrong study populations- an exemplar of baseline vitamin D status of participants in trials of vitamin D supplementation
title_short Assessment of research waste part 2: wrong study populations- an exemplar of baseline vitamin D status of participants in trials of vitamin D supplementation
title_sort assessment of research waste part 2: wrong study populations- an exemplar of baseline vitamin d status of participants in trials of vitamin d supplementation
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6171194/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30285729
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0555-1
work_keys_str_mv AT bollandmarkj assessmentofresearchwastepart2wrongstudypopulationsanexemplarofbaselinevitamindstatusofparticipantsintrialsofvitamindsupplementation
AT greyandrew assessmentofresearchwastepart2wrongstudypopulationsanexemplarofbaselinevitamindstatusofparticipantsintrialsofvitamindsupplementation
AT avenellalison assessmentofresearchwastepart2wrongstudypopulationsanexemplarofbaselinevitamindstatusofparticipantsintrialsofvitamindsupplementation