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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |