Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28438226›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2017

N of 1 trials and the optimal individualisation of drug treatments: a systematic review protocol.

Weyinmi A Demeyin, Julia Frost, Obioha C Ukoumunne, Simon Briscoe, Nicky Britten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The acute respiratory distress syndrome biomarker pipeline: crippling gaps between discovery and clinical utility.Translational research : the journal of laboratory and clinical medicine · 2020
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

5 authors.

Weyinmi A DemeyinInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, South Cloisters, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK. wd230@exeter.ac.uk.
Julia FrostInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, South Cloisters, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.
Obioha C UkoumunneInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, South Cloisters, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.
Simon BriscoeInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, South Cloisters, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.
Nicky BrittenInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, South Cloisters, St Luke's Campus, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuidelines and evidence-based drug treatment recommendations are usually based on the results of clinical trials, which have limited generalisability in routine clinical settings due to their restrictive eligibility criteria. These trials are also conducted in ideal and rigorously controlled settings. N of 1 trials, which are single patient multiple crossover studies, offer a means of increasing the evidence base and individualising care for individuals in clinical practice. This systematic review of the N of 1 drug treatment trial aims to investigate its usefulness for achieving optimal individualised patient care.

methodsThe following databases will be searched for relevant articles: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO (all via Ovid), AMED, CINAHAL (via EBSCO), The Cochrane Library (including CENTRAL, NHS EED, and DARE), and Web of Science (Thomson Reuters). Supplementary searches will include ongoing trial databases and organisational websites. All N of 1 trials in which patients have been treated with a drug will be considered. Outcomes will include information on the clinical usefulness of N of 1 trials-i.e. achievement of optimal individualised care, health-care utilisation of patients, frequently used practices, experiences of clinical care or participation in N of 1 trials, adherence to treatment plan, and unwanted effects of the treatment. Screening of included papers will be undertaken independently by two reviewers, while data extraction and the quality of reporting will be conducted by one reviewer and checked by another. Both quantitative and qualitative summaries will be reported using appropriate methods. DISCUSSION: This review will provide new insights into the clinical utility of N of 1 drug trials in helping participants find the most acceptable treatment as defined by patients and clinicians based on the selected outcome measures and the perspectives of participants involved in such trials. Findings from this review will inform the development of a stakeholder workshop and guidance to help physicians find the optimum therapy for their patients and will help guide future research on N of 1 trials. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016032452.

Indexed as

Clinical ProtocolsCross-Over StudiesDrug TherapySample SizeHumansSystematic Reviews as TopicABABIndividualised careMulti-crossoverN of 1Within patient

Identifiers

PMID28438226
PMCPMC5402671

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.