ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2007
Use of double-blind placebo-controlled N-of-1 trials among stimulant-treated youths in The Netherlands: a descriptive study.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAn N-of-1 trial is a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial to objectively and systematically evaluate the individual's response. This approach seems extraordinarily suitable for assessing the efficacy of stimulants in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The aim is to examine the use of N-of-1 trials among youths in the Netherlands, the protocols used, and the continuation of stimulant treatment thereafter.
methodsPhysicians requesting N-of-1 trials with stimulants were interviewed about their rationale and protocol. Prevalence and continuation were investigated by extracting N-of-1 trials among youths <20 years of age from a large pharmacy dispensing database for 2000-2004.
resultsThe main purpose of N-of-1 trials mentioned by physicians was the assessing of individuals' response and dose-finding. Trial length, dosing schedule and efficacy assessment differed per physician. Trials consisted of a maximum of two treatment periods per dose. The annual percentage of youths starting stimulant treatment with an N-of-1 trial fluctuated between 0.6% (3/462) and 3.3% (10/301). No statistical significant difference could be detected between the continuation of stimulant treatment with or without an N-of-1 trial (p = 0.71).
conclusionsN-of-1 trials with stimulants are infrequently and not optimally used in the Netherlands. The results of N-of-1 protocols described by physicians are of questionable value, due to the small number of treatment periods per dose. More uniformity in the protocols would make it easier to encompass the N-of-1 methodology in physicians' daily practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17115147What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.