Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26361984›Full record

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.

Harris A Ahmad, Klaus Gottlieb, Fez Hussain

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Endoscopy in IBD: When and How?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  4. Review
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

3 authors.

Harris A AhmadRheumatology and Gastroenterology, BioClinica Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA and harris.a.ahmad@gmail.com.
Klaus GottliebImmunology and Internal Medicine, Quintiles Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Fez HussainImmunology and Internal Medicine, Quintiles Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

clinical trialsendoscopyulcerative colitis

Identifiers

PMID26361984
PMCPMC4760065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.