Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30864259›Full record

Trial reportInternational wound journal2019

Variations in study outcomes relative to intention-to-treat and per-protocol data analysis techniques in the evaluation of efficacy for treatment of venous leg ulcers with dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane allograft.

Christian Bianchi, William Tettelbach, Niki Istwan, Brandon Hubbs, Kimberly Kot, Stan Harris, Donald Fetterolf

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International wound journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Christian BianchiDepartment of Surgery, Loma Linda Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Loma Linda, California.
William TettelbachDepartment of Medical Affairs, MiMedx Group, Inc., Marietta, Georgia.
Niki IstwanDepartment of Medical Affairs, Istwan Consulting Services, Prescott, Arizona.
Brandon HubbsDepartment of Medical Affairs, MiMedx Group, Inc., Marietta, Georgia.
Kimberly KotDepartment of Medical Affairs, MiMedx Group, Inc., Marietta, Georgia.
Stan HarrisDepartment of Medical Affairs, MiMedx Group, Inc., Marietta, Georgia.
Donald FetterolfDepartment of Medical Affairs, MiMedx Group, Inc., Marietta, Georgia.
Mimedx (United States) · USDuke University · USPrescott College · USVA Loma Linda Healthcare System · US

Funding

MiMedx Group Inc.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Statistical interpretation of data collected in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) is conducted on the intention-to-treat (ITT) and/or the per-protocol (PP) study populations. ITT analysis is a comparison of treatment groups including all patients as originally allocated after randomisation regardless if treatment was initiated or completed. PP analysis is a comparison of treatment groups including only those patients who completed the treatment as originally allocated, although it is often criticised because of its potential to instil bias. A previous report from an RCT conducted to evaluate the efficacy of dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane allograft (EpiFix) as an adjunct to standard comprehensive wound therapy consisting of moist dressings and multi-layer compression in the healing of venous leg ulcers (VLUs) only reported PP study results (n = 109, 52 EpiFix and 57 standard care patients), although there were 128 patients randomised: 64 to the EpiFix group and 64 to the standard care group. Primary study outcome was the incidence of healing at 12 weeks. The purpose of the present study is to report ITT results on all 128 randomised subjects and assess if both ITT and PP data analyses arrive at the same conclusion of the efficacy of EpiFix as a treatment for VLU. Rates of healing for the ITT and PP populations were, respectively, 50% and 60% for those receiving EpiFix and 31% and 35% for those in the standard care cohort. Within both ITT and PP analyses, these differences were statistically significant; P = 0.0473, ITT and P = 0.0128, PP. The Kaplan-Meier plot of time to heal within 12 weeks for the ITT and PP populations demonstrated a superior wound-healing trajectory for EpiFix compared with VLUs treated with standard care alone. These data provide clinicians and health policymakers an additional level of assurance regarding the effectiveness of EpiFix.

Indexed as

Data AnalysisTreatment OutcomeAgedAllograftsAmnionChorionDiabetic FootFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalProspective StudiesVaricose UlcerWound Healingdehydrated human amnion/chorion membraneEpiFixintention-to-treatvenous leg ulcers

Identifiers

PMID30864259
PMCPMC6850648
OpenAlexW2921343723

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.