Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28830236›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2017

Testing many treatments within a single protocol over 10 years at MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL: Multi-arm, multi-stage platform, umbrella and basket protocols.

Mahesh Kb Parmar, Matthew R Sydes, Fay H Cafferty, Babak Choodari-Oskooei, Ruth E Langley, Louise Brown, Patrick Pj Phillips, Melissa R Spears, Sam Rowley, Richard Kaplan and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

14 authors.

Mahesh Kb Parmar1 MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London, UK.
Matthew R Sydes1 MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London, UK.
Fay H Cafferty1 MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London, UK.
Babak Choodari-Oskooei1 MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London, UK.
Ruth E Langley1 MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London, UK.
Louise Brown1 MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London, UK.
Patrick Pj Phillips1 MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London, UK.
Melissa R Spears1 MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London, UK.
Sam Rowley1 MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London, UK.
Richard Kaplan1 MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London, UK.
Nicholas D James2 Faculty of Health, Education and Life Sciences, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK.
Timothy Maughan3 University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nicholas Paton1 MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London, UK.
Patrick J Royston1 MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 12127Cancer Research UK 3804Department of Health 11/100/50Department of Health 12/01/38Medical Research Council G0701770Medical Research Council MC_U122861325Medical Research Council MC_U122861326Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/20Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/24Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/25Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/27Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/28Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/29Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/3Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/4Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/6
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is real need to change how we do some of our clinical trials, as currently the testing and development process is too slow, too costly and too failure-prone often we find that a new treatment is no better than the current standard. Much of the focus on the development and testing pathway has been in improving the design of phase I and II trials. In this article, we present examples of new methods for improving the design of phase III trials (and the necessary lead up to them) as they are the most time-consuming and expensive part of the pathway. Key to all these methods is the aim to test many treatments and/or pose many therapeutic questions within one protocol.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials, Phase III as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignClinical ProtocolsHumansLondonMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient SelectionTreatment OutcomebasketMulti-armmulti-stageplatformrandomised trialsumbrella

Identifiers

PMID28830236
PMCPMC5700799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.