WFRF:(Deng JY)
Search: WFRF:(Deng JY) > Systematic bias bet...
- 15 of 15
- Previous record
- Next record
- To hitlist
Systematic bias between blinded independent central review and local assessment: literature review and analyses of 76 phase III randomised controlled trials in 45 688 patients with advanced solid tumour
- Zhang, JR (author)
- Zhang, YY (author)
- Tang, SY (author)
- show more...
- Jiang, L (author)
- He, QH (author)
- Hamblin, LT (author)
- He, JX (author)
- Xu, ZH (author)
- Wu, JY (author)
- Chen, YQ (author)
- Liang, HR (author)
- Chen, DF (author)
- Huang, Y (author)
- Wang, XY (author)
- Deng, KX (author)
- Jiang, SH (author)
- Zhou, JQ (author)
- Xu, JX (author)
- Chen, XZ (author)
- Liang, WH (author)
- He, JX (author)
- show less...
- 2018-09-10
- 2018
- English.
- In: BMJ open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 8:9, s. e017240-
- Journal article (peer-reviewed)
Abstract
Subject headings
Close
- Unbiased assessment of tumour response is crucial in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Blinded independent central review is usually used as a supplemental or monitor to local assessment but is costly. The aim of this study is to investigate whether systematic bias existed in RCTs by comparing the treatment effects of efficacy endpoints between central and local assessments.DesignLiterature review, pooling analysis and correlation analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesEligible articles are phase III RCTs comparing anticancer agents for advanced solid tumours. Additionally, the articles should report objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) or time to progression (TTP); the treatment effect of these endpoints, OR or HR, should be based on central and local assessments.ResultsOf 76 included trials involving 45 688 patients, 17 (22%) trials reported their endpoints with statistically inconsistent inferences (p value lower/higher than the probability of type I error) between central and local assessments; among them, 9 (53%) trials had statistically significant inference based on central assessment. Pooling analysis presented no systematic bias when comparing treatment effects of both assessments (ORR: OR=1.02 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.07), p=0.42, I2=0%; DCR: OR=0.97 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.03), p=0.32, I2=0%); PFS: HR=1.01 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.02), p=0.32, I2=0%; TTP: HR=1.04 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.14), p=0.37, I2=0%), regardless of funding source, mask, region, tumour type, study design, number of enrolled patients, response assessment criteria, primary endpoint and trials with statistically consistent/inconsistent inferences. Correlation analysis also presented no sign of systematic bias between central and local assessments (ORR, DCR, PFS: r>0.90, p<0.01; TTP: r=0.90, p=0.29).ConclusionsNo systematic bias could be found between local and central assessments in phase III RCTs on solid tumours. However, statistically inconsistent inferences could be made in many trials between both assessments.
Publication and Content Type
- ref (subject category)
- art (subject category)
- 15 of 15
- Previous record
- Next record
- To hitlist
Find more in SwePub
- By the author/editor
- Zhang, JR
- Zhang, YY
- Tang, SY
- Jiang, L
- He, QH
- Hamblin, LT
- show more...
- He, JX
- Xu, ZH
- Wu, JY
- Chen, YQ
- Liang, HR
- Chen, DF
- Huang, Y
- Wang, XY
- Deng, KX
- Jiang, SH
- Zhou, JQ
- Xu, JX
- Chen, XZ
- Liang, WH
- show less...
- Articles in the publication
- BMJ open
- By the university
- Karolinska Institutet
Search outside SwePub
- Extend your search to:
- Google Book Search
- Google Scholar
Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.
- Copyright © LIBRIS - National Library Systems
- LIBRIS.kb.se
