Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16984636›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2006

Conducting research in individual patients: lessons learnt from two series of N-of-1 trials.

Anke C M Wegman, Daniëlle A W M van der Windt, Wim A B Stalman, Theo P G M de Vries

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The Value of Case Reports for Graduate Medical Education.Journal of graduate medical education · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Experimental therapeutics in hereditary neuropathies: the past, the present, and the future.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2008
    Review
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

4 authors.

Anke C M WegmanDepartment of Pharmacology/Pharmacotherapy, VU University medical center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands. wegmanankecm@gmail.com
Daniëlle A W M van der Windt
Wim A B Stalman
Theo P G M de Vries

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDouble-blind randomised N-of-1 trials (N-of-1 trials) may help with decisions concerning treatment when there is doubt regarding the effectiveness and suitability of medication for individual patients. The patient is his or her own control, and receives the experimental and the control treatment during several periods of time in random order. Reports of N-of-1 trials are still relatively scarce, and the research methodology is not as firmly established as that of RCTs. Recently, we have conducted two series of N-of-1 trials in general practice. Before, during, and after data-collection, difficulties regarding outcome assessment, analysis of the results, the withdrawal of patients, and the follow-up had to be dealt with. These difficulties are described and our solutions are discussed. DISCUSSION: To prevent or anticipate difficulties in N-of-1 trials, we argue that that it is important to individualize the outcome measures, and to carefully consider the objective, type of randomisation and the analysis. It is recommended to use the same dosages and dosage forms that the patient used before the trial, to start the trial with a run-in period, to formulate both general and individualized decision rules regarding the efficacy of treatment, to adjust treatment policies immediately after the trial, and to provide adequate instructions and support if treatment is adjusted. SUMMARY: Because of the specific characteristics of N-of-1 trials it is difficult to formulate general 'how to do it' guidelines for designing N-of-1 trials. However, when the design of each N-of-1 trial is tailored to the specific characteristics of each individual patient and the underlying medical problem, most difficulties in N-of-1 trials can be prevented or overcome. In this way, N-of-1 trials may be of help when deciding on drug treatment for individual patients.

Indexed as

Treatment OutcomeAcetaminophenAnalgesics, Non-NarcoticAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalDose-Response Relationship, DrugDouble-Blind MethodFamily PracticeHumansHypnotics and SedativesOsteoarthritisPatient ParticipationPatient SelectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSleep Wake DisordersSurveys and QuestionnairesTemazepamAcetaminophenAnalgesics, Non-NarcoticAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalHypnotics and SedativesTemazepam

Identifiers

PMID16984636
PMCPMC1599734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.