ArticleCancer medicine2018
Integrating value of research into NCI Clinical Trials Cooperative Group research review and prioritization: A pilot study.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rapid Assessment of the Need for Evidence: Applying the Principles of Value of Information to Research Prioritisation.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Article
- Constructing Relative Effect Priors for Research Prioritization and Trial Design: A Meta-epidemiological Analysis.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023Article
- Article
- Influence of Modeling Choices on Value of Information Analysis: An Empirical Analysis from a Real-World Experiment.PharmacoEconomics · 2020Article
- How can clinical researchers quantify the value of their proposed comparative research?American heart journal · 2019Article
- Integrating value of research into NCI Clinical Trials Cooperative Group research review and prioritization: A pilot study.Cancer medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Institute of Medicine has called for approaches to help maximize the return on investments (ROI) in cancer clinical trials. Value of Research (VOR) is a health economics technique that estimates ROI and can inform research prioritization. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of using VOR analyses on the clinical trial proposal review process within the SWOG cancer clinical trials consortium.
methodsWe used a previously developed minimal modeling approach to calculate VOR estimates for 9 phase II/III SWOG proposals between February 2015 and December 2016. Estimates were presented to executive committee (EC) members (N = 12) who determine which studies are sent to the National Cancer Institute for funding consideration. EC members scored proposals from 1 (best) to 5 based on scientific merit and potential impact before and after receiving VOR estimates. EC members were surveyed to assess research priorities, proposal evaluation process satisfaction, and the VOR process.
resultsValue of Research estimates ranged from -$2.1B to $16.46B per proposal. Following review of VOR results, the EC changed their score for eight of nine proposals. Proposal rankings were different in pre- vs postscores (P value: 0.03). Respondents had mixed views of the ultimate utility of VOR for their decisions with most supporting (42%) or neutral (41%) to the idea of adding VOR to the evaluation process.
conclusionsThe findings from this pilot study indicate use of VOR analyses may be a useful adjunct to inform proposal reviews within NCI Cooperative Clinical Trials groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.