Adjudication-related processes are underreported and lack standardization in clinical trials of venous thromboembolism: A systematic review

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 67, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 278-284

  Stuck, Anna K ^a   Fuhrer, Evelyn ^a   Limacher, Andreas ^b   Méan, Marie ^a   Aujesky, Drahomir ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Data quality; Data reporting; Outcome adjudication; Outcome assessment; Systematic review; Venous thromboembolism

Indexed keywords

DATA QUALITY; DATA REPORTING; OUTCOME ADJUDICATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM;

CLINICAL TRIALS DATA MONITORING COMMITTEES; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM;

EID: 84895004899     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.09.011     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. P. Juni, D.G. Altman, and M. Egger Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials BMJ 323 2001 42 46
2. J. Savovic, H.E. Jones, D.G. Altman, R.J. Harris, P. Juni, and J. Pildal et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials Ann Intern Med 157 2012 429 438
3. K.W. Mahaffey, R.A. Harrington, M. Akkerhuis, N.S. Kleiman, L.G. Berdan, and B.S. Crenshaw 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 4 2001 187 194
4. U. Naslund, L. Grip, J. Fischer-Hansen, T. Gundersen, S. Lehto, and L. Wallentin The impact of an end-point committee in a large multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial: results with and without the end-point committee's final decision on end-points Eur Heart J 20 1999 771 777
5. J.L. Petersen, G. Haque, A.S. Hellkamp, G.C. Flaker, N.A. Mark Estes 3rd, and F.E. Marchlinski et al. Comparing classifications of death in the Mode Selection Trial: agreement and disagreement among site investigators and a clinical events committee Contemp Clin Trials 27 2006 260 268
6. K.W. Mahaffey, M.T. Roe, C.K. Dyke, L.K. Newby, N.S. Kleiman, and P. Connolly et al. Misreporting of myocardial infarction end points: results of adjudication by a central clinical events committee in the PARAGON-B trial. Second Platelet IIb/IIIa Antagonist for the Reduction of Acute Coronary Syndrome Events in a Global Organization Network Trial Am Heart J 143 2002 242 248
7. A. Hrobjartsson, A.S. Thomsen, F. Emanuelsson, B. Tendal, J. Hilden, and I. Boutron et al. Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors BMJ 344 2012 e1119
8. Guideline on data monitoring committees [Internet]. European Medicines Agency. Committee for medicinal products for human use (CHMP) 2005 [cited 2013 Apr 19]. Available from: http://www.emea.europa.eu/docs/en-GB/document-library/ Scientific-guideline/2009/09/WC500003635.pdf.
9. Guidance for clinical trial sponsors. Establishment and operation of clinical trial data monitoring committees [Internet]. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration 2006 [cited 2013 Apr 19]. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Regulatoryinformation/Guidances/ ucm127073.pdf.
10. A. Dechartres, I. Boutron, C. Roy, and P. Ravaud Inadequate planning and reporting of adjudication committees in clinical trials: recommendation proposal J Clin Epidemiol 62 2009 695 702
11. D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D.G. Altman Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement BMJ 339 2009 b2535
12. G. Wangge, O.H. Klungel, K.C. Roes, A. de Boer, A.W. Hoes, and M.J. Knol Room for improvement in conducting and reporting non-inferiority randomized controlled trials on drugs: a systematic review PLoS One 5 10 2010 e13550
13. C. Begg, M. Cho, S. Eastwood, R. Horton, D. Moher, and I. Olkin et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement JAMA 276 1996 637 639
14. D. Moher, K.F. Schulz, and D. Altman The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials JAMA 285 2001 1987 1991
15. D. Moher, S. Hopewell, K.F. Schulz, V. Montori, P.C. Gotzsche, and P.J. Devereaux et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials BMJ 340 2010 c869
16. A. Hrobjartsson, A.S. Thomsen, F. Emanuelsson, B. Tendal, J. Hilden, and I. Boutron et al. Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors CMAJ 185 4 2013 E201 E211
17. C.B. Granger, V. Vogel, S.R. Cummings, P. Held, F. Fiedorek, and M. Lawrence et al. Do we need to adjudicate major clinical events? Clin Trials 5 2008 56 60
18. J. Pogue, S.D. Walter, and S. Yusuf Evaluating the benefit of event adjudication of cardiovascular outcomes in large simple RCTs Clin Trials 6 2009 239 251
19. J.M. Stern, and R.J. Simes Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects BMJ 315 1997 640 645
20. H.P. Soares, S. Daniels, A. Kumar, M. Clarke, C. Scott, and S. Swann et al. Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group BMJ 328 2004 22 24
21. K. Huwiler-Muntener, P. Juni, C. Junker, and M. Egger Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality JAMA 287 2002 2801 2804