ArticleJournal of clinical gastroenterology
Analysis of site performance in academic-based and community-based centers in the IDEAL Study.
Article in Journal of clinical gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Monitoring performance of sites within multicentre randomised trials: a systematic review of performance metrics.Trials · 2018Pooled it
- Regional differences in hepatitis C treatment with peginterferon and ribavirin in Japan: a retrospective cohort study.Drug design, development and therapy · 2016Article
- Regional disparities in interferon therapy for chronic hepatitis C in Japan: a nationwide retrospective cohort study.BMC public health · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
goalsTo evaluate differences in metrics of quality and site performance in academic and community sites participating in a multicenter study.
backgroundIn the Individualized Dosing Efficacy Versus Flat Dosing to Assess Optimal Pegylated Interferon Therapy study, the participation of 76 academic-based and 42 community-based US centers provided an opportunity to evaluate various metrics of quality and site performance. STUDY: A secondary data analysis of the Individualized Dosing Efficacy Versus Flat Dosing to Assess Optimal Pegylated Interferon Therapy study was performed. There were 3070 treatment-naive, hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infected patients were included. We retrospectively evaluated rates of screen failure, completion, and discontinuation of treatment and follow-up, treatment adherence, and virologic response by site type.
resultsOf the patients screened, 63% and 37% were in academic and community centers, respectively. Screen failure rates were similar (30% to 32%). End-of-treatment response, relapse, and sustained virologic response (SVR) rates in academic and community centers did not differ. SVR was achieved in 40% of patients at academic sites and 39% at community sites. Adherence to ≥80% of peginterferon-α and ribavirin dosing for ≥80% assigned duration was also similar (46% in academic and 47% in community centers). In both academic and community centers, 54% of patients completed treatment; there were similar discontinuation rates for treatment failure and adverse events.
conclusionsThere were no significant differences in adherence, adverse events, rates of discontinuation, on-treatment virologic response, and SVR when comparing academic and community sites. The performance of academic-based and experienced community-based sites in clinical trials is largely similar for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.