Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26206532›Full record

SynthesisEye (London, England)2015

Design characteristic of randomised controlled trials for geographic atrophy in age-related macular degeneration: selection of outcomes and sample size calculation.

A K Krezel, R E Hogg, S Krezel, R Fallis, A Azuara-Blanco

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Eye (London, England), 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
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

5 authors.

A K KrezelCentre for Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
R E HoggCentre for Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
S KrezelFormer student of Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
R FallisMedical Library, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
A Azuara-BlancoCentre for Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe selection of suitable outcomes and sample size calculation are critical factors in the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT). The goal of this study was to identify the range of outcomes and information on sample size calculation in RCTs on geographic atrophy (GA).

methodsWe carried out a systematic review of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) RCTs. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, www.controlled-trials.com, and www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Two independent reviewers screened records. One reviewer collected data and the second reviewer appraised 10% of collected data. We scanned references lists of selected papers to include other relevant RCTs.

resultsLiterature and registry search identified 3816 abstracts of journal articles and 493 records from trial registries. From a total of 177 RCTs on all types of AMD, 23 RCTs on GA were included. Eighty-one clinical outcomes were identified. Visual acuity (VA) was the most frequently used outcome, presented in 18 out of 23 RCTs and followed by the measures of lesion area. For sample size analysis, 8 GA RCTs were included. None of them provided sufficient Information on sample size calculations.

conclusionsThis systematic review illustrates a lack of standardisation in terms of outcome reporting in GA trials and issues regarding sample size calculation. These limitations significantly hamper attempts to compare outcomes across studies and also perform meta-analyses.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignGeographic AtrophyHumansSample SizeSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID26206532
PMCPMC4815658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.