Revisiting the level of evidence in randomized controlled clinical trials: A simulation approach

Contemporary Clinical Trials

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 400-410

  Bajard, Agathe ^a   Chabaud, Sylvie ^a   Pérol, David ^a   Boissel, Jean Pierre ^b   Nony, Patrice ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ LYON 1   (France)

^b CENTRE LÉON BÉRARD   (France)

Author keywords

Internal validity; Level of evidence; Modeling; Randomized controlled clinical trials; Simulation

Indexed keywords

PLACEBO; SUMATRIPTAN; VASOCONSTRICTOR AGENT;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIZZINESS; DOSE RESPONSE; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; DRUG DISTRIBUTION; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG MECHANISM; DRUG SAFETY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FOLLOW UP; HEADACHE; HUMAN; INTERNAL VALIDITY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; METHODOLOGY; MIGRAINE; MONTE CARLO METHOD; NAUSEA; PARALLEL DESIGN; PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL; PREDICTION; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SAMPLING ERROR; SIMULATION; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; SINGLE DRUG DOSE; SOCIAL DOMINANCE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT RESPONSE; MIGRAINE DISORDERS; PROBABILITY; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK; STATISTICAL MODEL;

DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; MIGRAINE DISORDERS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; ODDS RATIO; PROBABILITY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SUMATRIPTAN; VASOCONSTRICTOR AGENTS;

EID: 68449102161     PISSN: 15517144     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2009.06.005     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Atkins D., Best D., Briss P.A., et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Br Med J 328 (2004) 1490
2. Moher D., Jadad A.R., Nichol G., Penman M., Tugwell P., and Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 16 (1995) 62-73
3. Jadad A.R., Moore R.A., Carroll D., et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials 17 (1996) 1-12
4. Bossard N., Boissel F.H., and Boissel J.P. Level of evidence and therapeutic evaluation: need for more thoughts. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 18 (2004) 365-372
5. Schulz K.F., Chalmers I., Hayes R.J., and Altman D.G. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. J Amer Med Assoc 273 (1995) 408-412
6. Juni P., Altman D.G., and Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. Br Med J 323 (2001) 42-46
7. Kimko H.C., and Duffull S.B. Simulation for designing clinical trials. A pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling perspective. Drugs and the Pharmaceutical Sciences vol. 127 (2003), Marcel Dekker Inc
8. No authors listed. Sumatriptan-an oral dose-defining study. the oral sumatriptan dose-defining study group. Eur Neurol 31 (1991) 300-5
9. Pfaffenrath V., Cunin G., Sjonell G., and Prendergast S. Efficacy and safety of sumatriptan tablets (25 mg, 50 mg, and 100 mg) in the acute treatment of migraine: defining the optimum doses of oral sumatriptan. Headache 38 (1998) 184-190
10. Boissel J.P., Philippon A.M., Gauthier E., Schbath J., and Destors J.M. Time course of long-term placebo therapy effects in angina pectoris. Eur Heart J 7 12 (Dec 1986) 1030-1036
11. Boissel J.P., Duperat B., and Leizorovicz A. The phenomenon of regression to the mean and clinical investigation of blood cholesterol lowering drugs. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 17 3 (1980) 227-230
12. Chalmers T.C., Celano P., Sacks H.S., and Smith Jr. H. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med 309 (1983) 1358-1361
13. Moher D., Pham B., Jones A., et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet 352 (1998) 609-613
14. Hartman J.M., Forsen Jr. J.W., Wallace M.S., and Neely J.G. Tutorials in clinical research: part IV: recognizing and controlling bias. Laryngoscope 112 1 (Jan 2002) 23-31
15. Sackett D.L. Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis 32 1-2 (1979) 51-63
16. Noseworthy J.H., Ebers G.C., Vandervoort M.K., Farquhar R.E., Yetisir E., and Roberts R. The impact of blinding on the results of a randomized, placebo-controlled multiple sclerosis clinical trial. Neurology 44 (1994) 16-20
17. Altman D.G. Randomisation. Br Med J 302 (1991) 1481-1482
18. Altman D.G., and Bland J.M. Statistics notes. Treatment allocation in controlled trials: why randomise?. Br Med J 318 (1999) 1209
19. Macedo A., Farre M., and Banos J.E. A meta-analysis of the placebo response in acute migraine and how this response may be influenced by some of the characteristics of clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 62 (2006) 161-172
20. Boissel J.P., Biron A., Leizorovicz A., and Deguerry C. PROGET: a large scale cooperative trial computerized management system. In: Hugenholtz P.H., and Cox D.R. (Eds). IEEE/Computers in Cardiology (1977), IEEE Computer Society, Long Beach 127-135
21. Mahaffey K.W., Harrington R.A., Akkerhuis M., et al. Disagreements between central clinical events committee and site investigator assessments of myocardial infarction endpoints in an international clinical trial: review of the PURSUIT study. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 2 (2001) 187-194
22. Sackett D.L., and Gent M. Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 301 (1979) 1410-1412
23. No authors listed. Influence of adherence to treatment and response of cholesterol on mortality in the coronary drug project. N Engl J Med 303 (1980) 1038-1041
24. Hewitt C., Hahn S., Torgerson D.J., Watson J., and Bland J.M. Adequacy and reporting of allocation concealment: review of recent trials published in four general medical journals. BMJ 330 7499 (May 7 2005) 1057-1058
25. Murphy E.A. The logic of medicine (1976), Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
26. Chalmers T.C., Smith Jr. H., Blackburn B., et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials 2 (1981) 31-49
27. Bergmann J.F., Chassany O., Segrestaa J.M., and Caulin C. Critical examination of scoring systems in therapeutic trials. Therapie 49 (1994) 181-184
28. Campbell D.T. Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychol Bull. 54 (1957) 297-312
29. Campbell D.T., and Stanley J.C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In: Gage N.L. (Ed). Handbook of research on teaching (1963), Rand McNally, Chicago 171-246