主要试验结果的裁定:一项大型国际试验的校准工作和协议的结果

IF 1.4 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications Pub Date : 2024-03-05 DOI:10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101284
Deborah Cook , Adam Deane , Joanna C. Dionne , François Lauzier , John C. Marshall , Yaseen M. Arabi , M. Elizabeth Wilcox , Marlies Ostermann , Abdulrahman Al-Fares , Diane Heels-Ansdell , Nicole Zytaruk , Lehana Thabane , Simon Finfer , for the REVISE Investigators and the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group
{"title":"主要试验结果的裁定:一项大型国际试验的校准工作和协议的结果","authors":"Deborah Cook ,&nbsp;Adam Deane ,&nbsp;Joanna C. Dionne ,&nbsp;François Lauzier ,&nbsp;John C. Marshall ,&nbsp;Yaseen M. Arabi ,&nbsp;M. Elizabeth Wilcox ,&nbsp;Marlies Ostermann ,&nbsp;Abdulrahman Al-Fares ,&nbsp;Diane Heels-Ansdell ,&nbsp;Nicole Zytaruk ,&nbsp;Lehana Thabane ,&nbsp;Simon Finfer ,&nbsp;for the REVISE Investigators and the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group","doi":"10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Ascertainment of the severity of the primary outcome of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is integral to stress ulcer prophylaxis trials. This protocol outlines the adjudication process for GI bleeding events in an international trial comparing pantoprazole to placebo in critically ill patients (REVISE: <u>R</u>e-<u>Ev</u>aluating the Inhibition of <u>S</u>tress <u>E</u>rosions). The primary objective of the adjudication process is to assess episodes submitted by participating sites to determine which fulfil the definition of the primary efficacy outcome of clinically important upper GI bleeding. Secondary objectives are to categorize the bleeding severity if deemed not clinically important, and adjudicate the bleeding site, timing, investigations, and treatments.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Research coordinators follow patients daily for any suspected clinically important upper GI bleeding, and submit case report forms, doctors' and nurses’ notes, laboratory, imaging, and procedural reports to the methods center. An international central adjudication committee reflecting diverse specialty backgrounds conducted an initial calibration exercise to delineate the scope of the adjudication process, review components of the definition, and agree on how each criterion will be considered fulfilled. Henceforth, bleeding events will be stratified by study drug, and randomly assigned to adjudicator pairs (blinded to treatment allocation, and study center).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Crude agreement, chance-corrected agreement, or chance-independent agreement if data have a skewed distribution will be calculated.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Focusing on consistency and accuracy, central independent blinded duplicate adjudication of suspected clinically important upper GI bleeding events will determine which events fulfil the definition of the primary efficacy outcome for this stress ulcer prophylaxis trial.</p></div><div><h3>Registration</h3><p>NCT03374800 (REVISE: <u>R</u>e-<u>Ev</u>aluating the Inhibition of <u>S</u>tress <u>E</u>rosions)</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37937,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451865424000310/pdfft?md5=723dcea2f15ec43d36fb76712afd741c&pid=1-s2.0-S2451865424000310-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adjudication of a primary trial outcome: Results of a calibration exercise and protocol for a large international trial\",\"authors\":\"Deborah Cook ,&nbsp;Adam Deane ,&nbsp;Joanna C. Dionne ,&nbsp;François Lauzier ,&nbsp;John C. Marshall ,&nbsp;Yaseen M. Arabi ,&nbsp;M. Elizabeth Wilcox ,&nbsp;Marlies Ostermann ,&nbsp;Abdulrahman Al-Fares ,&nbsp;Diane Heels-Ansdell ,&nbsp;Nicole Zytaruk ,&nbsp;Lehana Thabane ,&nbsp;Simon Finfer ,&nbsp;for the REVISE Investigators and the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101284\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Ascertainment of the severity of the primary outcome of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is integral to stress ulcer prophylaxis trials. This protocol outlines the adjudication process for GI bleeding events in an international trial comparing pantoprazole to placebo in critically ill patients (REVISE: <u>R</u>e-<u>Ev</u>aluating the Inhibition of <u>S</u>tress <u>E</u>rosions). The primary objective of the adjudication process is to assess episodes submitted by participating sites to determine which fulfil the definition of the primary efficacy outcome of clinically important upper GI bleeding. Secondary objectives are to categorize the bleeding severity if deemed not clinically important, and adjudicate the bleeding site, timing, investigations, and treatments.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Research coordinators follow patients daily for any suspected clinically important upper GI bleeding, and submit case report forms, doctors' and nurses’ notes, laboratory, imaging, and procedural reports to the methods center. An international central adjudication committee reflecting diverse specialty backgrounds conducted an initial calibration exercise to delineate the scope of the adjudication process, review components of the definition, and agree on how each criterion will be considered fulfilled. Henceforth, bleeding events will be stratified by study drug, and randomly assigned to adjudicator pairs (blinded to treatment allocation, and study center).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Crude agreement, chance-corrected agreement, or chance-independent agreement if data have a skewed distribution will be calculated.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Focusing on consistency and accuracy, central independent blinded duplicate adjudication of suspected clinically important upper GI bleeding events will determine which events fulfil the definition of the primary efficacy outcome for this stress ulcer prophylaxis trial.</p></div><div><h3>Registration</h3><p>NCT03374800 (REVISE: <u>R</u>e-<u>Ev</u>aluating the Inhibition of <u>S</u>tress <u>E</u>rosions)</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37937,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451865424000310/pdfft?md5=723dcea2f15ec43d36fb76712afd741c&pid=1-s2.0-S2451865424000310-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451865424000310\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451865424000310","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景确定上消化道(GI)出血这一主要结果的严重程度是应激性溃疡预防试验不可或缺的一部分。本方案概述了在一项比较泮托拉唑和安慰剂对重症患者治疗效果的国际试验(REVISE:重新评估应激性溃疡的抑制作用)中消化道出血事件的裁定流程。判定过程的主要目的是评估参与试验的研究机构提交的病例,以确定哪些病例符合临床上重要的上消化道出血这一主要疗效结果的定义。次要目标是对被认为不具有临床重要性的出血严重程度进行分类,并对出血部位、时间、检查和治疗方法进行裁定。方法:研究协调员每天对疑似具有临床重要性的上消化道出血患者进行随访,并向方法中心提交病例报告表、医生和护士笔记、实验室、成像和程序报告。一个反映不同专业背景的国际中央裁定委员会进行了初步校准工作,以划定裁定流程的范围,审查定义的组成部分,并就如何认定符合每项标准达成一致意见。此后,出血事件将按研究药物进行分层,并随机分配给一对裁定者(对治疗分配和研究中心双盲)。结果将计算粗略的一致性、机会校正一致性或机会无关一致性(如果数据分布偏斜)。结论以一致性和准确性为重点,对疑似临床重要的上消化道出血事件进行中央独立盲法重复判定,以确定哪些事件符合应激性溃疡预防试验主要疗效结果的定义。注册号NCT03374800(REVISE:重新评估应激性溃疡的抑制作用)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Adjudication of a primary trial outcome: Results of a calibration exercise and protocol for a large international trial

Background

Ascertainment of the severity of the primary outcome of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is integral to stress ulcer prophylaxis trials. This protocol outlines the adjudication process for GI bleeding events in an international trial comparing pantoprazole to placebo in critically ill patients (REVISE: Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions). The primary objective of the adjudication process is to assess episodes submitted by participating sites to determine which fulfil the definition of the primary efficacy outcome of clinically important upper GI bleeding. Secondary objectives are to categorize the bleeding severity if deemed not clinically important, and adjudicate the bleeding site, timing, investigations, and treatments.

Methods

Research coordinators follow patients daily for any suspected clinically important upper GI bleeding, and submit case report forms, doctors' and nurses’ notes, laboratory, imaging, and procedural reports to the methods center. An international central adjudication committee reflecting diverse specialty backgrounds conducted an initial calibration exercise to delineate the scope of the adjudication process, review components of the definition, and agree on how each criterion will be considered fulfilled. Henceforth, bleeding events will be stratified by study drug, and randomly assigned to adjudicator pairs (blinded to treatment allocation, and study center).

Results

Crude agreement, chance-corrected agreement, or chance-independent agreement if data have a skewed distribution will be calculated.

Conclusions

Focusing on consistency and accuracy, central independent blinded duplicate adjudication of suspected clinically important upper GI bleeding events will determine which events fulfil the definition of the primary efficacy outcome for this stress ulcer prophylaxis trial.

Registration

NCT03374800 (REVISE: Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions)

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
146
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is an international peer reviewed open access journal that publishes articles pertaining to all aspects of clinical trials, including, but not limited to, design, conduct, analysis, regulation and ethics. Manuscripts submitted should appeal to a readership drawn from a wide range of disciplines including medicine, life science, pharmaceutical science, biostatistics, epidemiology, computer science, management science, behavioral science, and bioethics. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is unique in that it is outside the confines of disease specifications, and it strives to increase the transparency of medical research and reduce publication bias by publishing scientifically valid original research findings irrespective of their perceived importance, significance or impact. Both randomized and non-randomized trials are within the scope of the Journal. Some common topics include trial design rationale and methods, operational methodologies and challenges, and positive and negative trial results. In addition to original research, the Journal also welcomes other types of communications including, but are not limited to, methodology reviews, perspectives and discussions. Through timely dissemination of advances in clinical trials, the goal of Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is to serve as a platform to enhance the communication and collaboration within the global clinical trials community that ultimately advances this field of research for the benefit of patients.
期刊最新文献
Personalized tourniquet pressure versus uniform tourniquet pressure in orthopedic trauma surgery of extremities: A prospective randomized controlled study protocol Optimization the design of fixed and group sequential three-arm non-inferiority trials with dichotomous endpoints of risk difference and odds ratio A type 1 hybrid multi-site randomized controlled trial protocol for evaluating virtual interview training among autistic transition-age youth Adapting the design of the ongoing RAMPART trial in response to external evidence: An example for trials which take many years to run and report Evaluating chronic disease approaches to ameliorate tobacco-related health disparities: Study protocol of a hybrid type 1 implementation-effectiveness trial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1