Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29085638›Full record

ArticleSAGE open medicine2017

The life cycles of six multi-center adaptive clinical trials focused on neurological emergencies developed for the Advancing Regulatory Science initiative of the National Institutes of Health and US Food and Drug Administration: Case studies from the Adaptive Designs Accelerating Promising Treatments Into Trials Project.

Timothy C Guetterman, Michael D Fetters, Samkeliso Mawocha, Laurie J Legocki, William G Barsan, Roger J Lewis, Donald A Berry, William J Meurer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SAGE open medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

8 authors.

Timothy C GuettermanDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Michael D FettersDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Samkeliso MawochaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Laurie J LegockiDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
William G BarsanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Roger J LewisDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Donald A BerryDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
William J MeurerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Funding

Neurologic Emergencies Treatment Trials Network: Clinical Coordinating CenterU01NS056975 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI BARSAN, WILLIAM G · 2006 to 2015
$40.4M
Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences (CCTS)UL1TR000371 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI MCPHERSON, DAVID D · 2012 to 2016
$13.4M
Accelerating Drug and Device Evaluation through Innovative Clinical Trial DesignU01NS073476 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI BARSAN, WILLIAM G, BERRY, DONALD A · 2010 to 2012
$2.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000371NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS056975NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS073476
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesClinical trials are complicated, expensive, time-consuming, and frequently do not lead to discoveries that improve the health of patients with disease. Adaptive clinical trials have emerged as a methodology to provide more flexibility in design elements to better answer scientific questions regarding whether new treatments are efficacious. Limited observational data exist that describe the complex process of designing adaptive clinical trials. To address these issues, the Adaptive Designs Accelerating Promising Treatments Into Trials project developed six, tailored, flexible, adaptive, phase-III clinical trials for neurological emergencies, and investigators prospectively monitored and observed the processes. The objective of this work is to describe the adaptive design development process, the final design, and the current status of the adaptive trial designs that were developed.

methodsTo observe and reflect upon the trial development process, we employed a rich, mixed methods evaluation that combined quantitative data from visual analog scale to assess attitudes about adaptive trials, along with in-depth qualitative data about the development process gathered from observations.

resultsThe Adaptive Designs Accelerating Promising Treatments Into Trials team developed six adaptive clinical trial designs. Across the six designs, 53 attitude surveys were completed at baseline and after the trial planning process completed. Compared to baseline, the participants believed significantly more strongly that the adaptive designs would be accepted by National Institutes of Health review panels and non-researcher clinicians. In addition, after the trial planning process, the participants more strongly believed that the adaptive design would meet the scientific and medical goals of the studies.

conclusionIntroducing the adaptive design at early conceptualization proved critical to successful adoption and implementation of that trial. Involving key stakeholders from several scientific domains early in the process appears to be associated with improved attitudes towards adaptive designs over the life cycle of clinical trial development.

Indexed as

Adaptive clinical trialsBayesian statisticsclinical trialsemergency medicinemixed methods researchneurology

Identifiers

PMID29085638
PMCPMC5648086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.