Multiples and parents of multiples prefer same arm randomization of siblings in neonatal trials

Journal of Perinatology

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 208-213

  Bernardo, J ^a,b   Nowacki, A ^a,c   Martin, R ^b,d   Fanaroff, J M ^b,d   Hibbs, A M ^b,d  

^a CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CHILD; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); CONTROLLED STUDY; FAMILY DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HEALTH EQUITY; HEALTH STATUS; HOSPITAL ADMISSION; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEONATAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT; NEWBORN; PARENTAL PREFERENCE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PROGRAM ACCEPTABILITY; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RESEARCH SUBJECT; SIBLING; STUDY DESIGN; TWINS PREFERENCE; UNSPECIFIED HEALTH; METHODOLOGY; MULTIPLE PREGNANCY; NEWBORN INTENSIVE CARE; PARENT; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PSYCHOLOGY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; INTENSIVE CARE UNITS, NEONATAL; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPLE BIRTH OFFSPRING; PARENTS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; SIBLINGS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84911904466     PISSN: 07438346     EISSN: 14765543     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/jp.2014.192     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Hibbs AM, Black D, Palermo L, Cnaan A, Luan X, Truog WE et al. Accounting for multiple births in neonatal and perinatal trials: systematic review and case study. J Pediatr 2010; 156: 202-208.
2. Chauhan SP. Twins: prevalence, problems, and preterm births. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203: 305-315.
3. Gates S, Brocklehurst P. How should randomised trials including multiple pregnancies be analysed?. BJOG 2004; 111: 213-219.
4. Heo M, Leon AC. Comparison of statistical methods for analysis of clustered binary observations. Stat Med 2005; 24: 911-923.
5. Yelland LN, Saltera AB, Ryan P, Makrides M. Analysis of binary outcomes from randomised trials including multiple births: when should clustering be taken into account?. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2011; 25: 283-297.
6. Shaffer ML, Kunselman AR, Watterberg KL. Analysis of neonatal clinical trials with twin births. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009; 9: 1-8.
7. Marston L, Peacock JL, Yuc K, Brocklehurst P, Calvert SA, Greenough A et al. Comparing methods of analysing datasets with small clusters: case studies using four paediatric datasets. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2009; 23: 380-392.
8. The Readability Test Tool [homepage on the Internet]. Cited May 22, 2014 Available from http://read-Able.com/.
9. Kodish E, Eder M, Noll RB, Ruccione K, Lange B, Angiolillo A et al. Communication of randomization in childhood leukemia trials. JAMA 2004; 291: 470-475.
10. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical?. JAMA 2000; 283: 2701-2711.
11. Jonsen A, Siegler M, Winslade W. Clinical Ethics: A Practical Approach to Ethical Decisions in Clinical Medicine. McGraw Hill: New York, 2002.
12. Kodish E. Informed consent for pediatric research: is it really possible? J Pediatr 2003; 142: 89-90.
13. Snowdon C, Garrcia J, Elbourne D. Making sense of randomization; responses of parents of critically ill babies to random allocation of treatment in a clinical trial. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45: 1337-1355.
14. Robinson EJ, Kerra C, Stevens A, Lilford R, Braunholtz D, Edwards S. Lay conceptions of the ethical and scientific justifications for randomallocation in clinical trials. Soc Sci Med 2004; 58: 811-824.