ArticleContemporary clinical trials2015
The futility study--Progress over the last decade.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation vs Sham Stimulation to Treat Aphasia After Stroke: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA neurology · 2018Trial
- Article
- Article
- Sequential tests of promise with discrete time-to-event data.Contemporary clinical trials · 2019Article
- Cholinergic nervous system and glaucoma: From basic science to clinical applications.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2019Review
- Statistical advances in clinical trials and clinical research.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) · 2018Article
- Emtonjeni-A Structural Intervention to Integrate Sexual and Reproductive Health into Public Sector HIV Care in Cape Town, South Africa: Results of a Phase II Study.AIDS and behavior · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
We review the futility clinical trial design (also known as the non-superiority design) with respect to its emergence and methodologic developments over the last decade, especially in regard to its application to clinical trials for neurological disorders. We discuss the design's strengths as a programmatic screening device to weed out unpromising new treatments, its limitations and pitfalls, and a recent critique of the logic of the method.
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.