ArticleGastroenterology report2016
The 2 + 1 paradigm: an efficient algorithm for central reading of Mayo endoscopic subscores in global multicenter phase 3 ulcerative colitis clinical trials.
Article in Gastroenterology report, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Alternative Endoscopy Reading Paradigms Determine Score Reliability and Effect Size in Ulcerative Colitis.Journal of Crohn's & colitis · 2024Article
- Deep mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis: how deep is better?Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Endoscopy in IBD: When and How?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite its importance and potential impact in clinical trials, central reading continues to be an under-represented topic in the literature about inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) clinical trials. Although several IBD studies have incorporated central reading to date, none have fully detailed the specific methodology with which the reads were conducted. Here we outline key principles for designing an efficient central reading paradigm for an ulcerative colitis (UC) study that addresses regulatory, operational and clinical expectations. As a step towards standardization of read methodology for the growing number of multicenter phase 3 clinical trials in IBD, we have applied these principles to the design of an optimal read methodology that we call the '2 + 1 paradigm.' The 2 + 1 paradigm involves the use of both site and central readers, validated scoring criteria and multiple measures for blinding readers, all of which contribute to reducing bias and generating a reliable endoscopic subscore that reflects endoscopic disease severity. The paradigm can be utilized while maintaining a practical workflow compatible with an operationally feasible clinical trial. The 2 + 1 paradigm represents a logical approach to endoscopic assessment in IBD clinical trials, one that should be considered attractive to prospective sponsors, contract research organizations, key opinion leaders and regulatory authorities and be ready for implementation and further evaluation.
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.