Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29224380›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2018

Ethics and practice of Trials within Cohorts: An emerging pragmatic trial design.

Scott Yh Kim, James Flory, Clare Relton

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04761133 (Antiseptic Pleural Irrigation for Patients With Pleural Infection), which is not on this map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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.

NCT04761133 phase1completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Antiseptic Pleural Irrigation for Patients With Pleural Infection

TypeinterventionalSponsorAlexandria UniversityRan2021 to 2021Enrolled36ConditionsPleural InfectionArmsPovidone-Iodine pleural irrigation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Treatment de-escalation for stage II seminoma.Nature reviews. Urology · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. The ShortERJ open research · 2023
    Article
  18. Underestimating the benefits of screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer.International journal of colorectal disease · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Scott Yh Kim1 Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
James Flory3 Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Clare Relton4 University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Funding

Ethics of Standards of Care ResearchZIACL010538 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI KIM, SCOTT · 2015 to 2025
$0k
AHRQ HHS K08 HS023898Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CL999999Intramural NIH HHS ZIA CL010538Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith increasing emphasis on pragmatic trials, new randomized clinical trial designs are being proposed to enhance the "real world" nature of the data generated. We describe one such design, appropriate for unmasked pragmatic clinical trials in which the control arm receives usual care, called "Trials within Cohorts" that is increasingly used in various countries because of its efficiency in recruitment, advantages in reducing subject burden, and ability to better mimic real-world consent processes.

methodsDescriptive, ethical, and US regulatory analysis of the Trials within Cohorts design.

resultsTrials within Cohorts design involves, after recruitment into a cohort, randomization of eligible subjects, followed by an asymmetric treatment of the two arms: those selected for the experimental arm provide informed consent for the intervention trial, while the data from the control arm are used based on prior broad permission. Thus, unlike the traditional Zelen post-randomization consent design, the cohort participants are informed about future research within the cohort; however, the extent of this disclosure currently varies among studies. Thus, ethical analysis is provided for two types of situations: when the pre-randomization disclosure and consent regarding the embedded trials are fairly explicit and detailed versus when they consist of only general statements about future data use. These differing ethical situations could have implications for how ethics review committees apply US research rules regarding waivers and alterations of informed consent.

conclusionTrials within Cohorts is a promising new pragmatic randomized controlled trial design that is being increasingly used in various countries. Although the asymmetric consent procedures for the experimental versus control arm subjects can initially raise ethical concerns, it is ethically superior to previous post-randomization consent designs and can have important advantages over traditional trial designs.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesResearch DesignDisclosureHumansInformed ConsentRandom AllocationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUnited StatesethicsInformed consentpragmatic randomized controlled trialpragmatic trial

Identifiers

PMID29224380
PMCPMC6006508

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.