ReviewJournal of neurology2015
Characterization of the adverse events profile of placebo-treated patients in randomized controlled trials on drug-resistant focal epilepsies.
Review in Journal of neurology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Are Patients WithFrontiers in pharmacology · 2019Pooled it
- European Headache Federation recommendations for placebo and nocebo terminology.The journal of headache and pain · 2020Article
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
In epilepsy trials a substantial proportion of patients receiving placebo has some improvement or experience adverse events (AEs) which match those related to active drug. The characterization of factors influencing these responses is crucial for a better comprehension of study results and to improve design of new trials. Seventy-one placebo-controlled, double-blind trials in drug-resistant focal epilepsies has been selected. The effect of multiple factors on some outcome measures were explored using a meta-regression model. For subjective and objective AEs, risk difference (RD) was calculated and entered in an inverse variance-weighted linear meta-regression model as independent variable to evaluate the relationship with data reported in placebo-treated patients. The number of study arms influence the percentage of patients withdrawing because of AEs and the highest dose of the experimental drug used in each RCT correlates with withdrawal because of AEs and with subjective AEs. Higher titration speed is associated with lower percentages of responders and higher reporting of both objective and subjective AEs. The correlation between proportions of placebo-treated patients with subjective and objective neurological AEs and relative RD, was significant (P = 0.002 r = 0.364 and P < 0.001 r = 0.650, respectively). Efficacy and tolerability outcomes of the placebo groups are intrinsically tied to the trial methodology and to the outcomes observed in patients treated with the active drug. The correlation for objective and subjective AEs between RD and the placebo-treated patients suggest that investigators are influenced by factors which operate within each specific trial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25311571What 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.