Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11470019›Full record

ReviewCurrent hypertension reports2001

Lessons learned from prematurely terminated clinical trials.

D Sica

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current hypertension reports, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

D SicaDivision of Nephrology, Medical College of Virginia of Virginia Commonwealth University, Box 980160, Richmond, VA 23298, USA. dsica@ hsc.vcu.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Controlled clinical trials in cardiovascular disease are the cornerstone for therapeutic advances in this field of medicine. Since the introduction of the concept of controlled clinical trials, there has been substantial progress in the design, conduct, and analysis of such studies. A growing awareness of ethical issues emerging from such trials has led to increased public and investigator scrutiny, and the routine requirement for interim data analysis. A benefit of such interim analysis is that either an entire clinical trial or a specific treatment limb can be stopped if the observed findings warrant premature termination. For example, highly positive findings, as were noted in the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) study, led to its closure about 1 year early after 4.5 years of treatment. Alternatively, the doxazosin treatment limb of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) and the amlodipine treatment limb of the African-American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK) were stopped early because of negative findings. Finally, economic considerations can enter into the decision to close a study early as was the case in the Controlled ONset Verapamil INvestigation of Cardiovascular Endpoints (CONVINCE) trial. Most such decisions rely heavily on information obtained from independent data and safety monitoring boards. Such boards ensure patient safety by providing an unbiased ongoing review of data, which would otherwise be unavailable until a study's completion. Early termination of a clinical trial can have important clinical implications and, in particular, can redirect patterns of clinical practice.

Indexed as

Controlled Clinical Trials as TopicCardiovascular DiseasesHumansTime Factors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.