Cargando…

Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wasmann, Karin A, Wijsman, Pieta, van Dieren, Susan, Bemelman, Willem, Buskens, Christianne
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6797441/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31619428
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031151
_version_ 1783459828988903424
author Wasmann, Karin A
Wijsman, Pieta
van Dieren, Susan
Bemelman, Willem
Buskens, Christianne
author_facet Wasmann, Karin A
Wijsman, Pieta
van Dieren, Susan
Bemelman, Willem
Buskens, Christianne
author_sort Wasmann, Karin A
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients’ preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS: In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%–100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%–99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI −0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS: Patients’ preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019094438.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6797441
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67974412019-11-01 Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses Wasmann, Karin A Wijsman, Pieta van Dieren, Susan Bemelman, Willem Buskens, Christianne BMJ Open Epidemiology OBJECTIVE: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients’ preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS: In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%–100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%–99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI −0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS: Patients’ preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019094438. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-10-16 /pmc/articles/PMC6797441/ /pubmed/31619428 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031151 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Epidemiology
Wasmann, Karin A
Wijsman, Pieta
van Dieren, Susan
Bemelman, Willem
Buskens, Christianne
Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses
title Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses
title_full Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses
title_fullStr Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses
title_full_unstemmed Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses
title_short Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses
title_sort partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses
topic Epidemiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6797441/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31619428
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031151
work_keys_str_mv AT wasmannkarina partiallyrandomisedpatientpreferencetrialsasanalternativedesigntorandomisedcontrolledtrialssystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT wijsmanpieta partiallyrandomisedpatientpreferencetrialsasanalternativedesigntorandomisedcontrolledtrialssystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT vandierensusan partiallyrandomisedpatientpreferencetrialsasanalternativedesigntorandomisedcontrolledtrialssystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT bemelmanwillem partiallyrandomisedpatientpreferencetrialsasanalternativedesigntorandomisedcontrolledtrialssystematicreviewandmetaanalyses
AT buskenschristianne partiallyrandomisedpatientpreferencetrialsasanalternativedesigntorandomisedcontrolledtrialssystematicreviewandmetaanalyses