SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2020
A systematic survey of randomised trials that stopped early for reasons of futility.
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 prophylaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Electromagnetic Stimulation to Reduce Disability After Ischemic Stroke: The EMAGINE Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- No effect of tetracosactide for treatment of postdural puncture headaches in parturient women: a double-blind randomised controlled clinical trial.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Trial
- Lamotrigine for cognitive deficits associated with neurofibromatosis type 1: A phase II randomized placebo-controlled trial.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Prospective phase 2 trial of PSMA-targeted molecular RadiothErapy withJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2021Trial
- Futility Interim Analyses - A Plea for Simplicity.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2025Article
- Practical and analytical considerations when performing interim analyses in diagnostic test accuracy studies.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2024Article
- Article
- Avoiding future controversies in the Alzheimer's disease space through understanding the aducanumab data and FDA review.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2023Review
- Taking a chance: How likely am I to receive my preferred treatment in a clinical trial?Statistical methods in medical research · 2023Article
- Putting participants and study partners FIRST when clinical trials end early.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2022Article
- Article
- Incorporation of randomized controlled trials into organizational guidelines for obstetricians and gynecologists.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2022Article
- Ethics in Psychiatric Research.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2022Article
- A multi-center phase II randomized clinical trial of losartan on symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19.EClinicalMedicine · 2021Article
- Conditional power of antidepressant network meta-analysis.BMC psychiatry · 2021Article
- Decision making in clinical trials: Interim analyses, innovative design, and biomarkers.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRandomised trial protocols may incorporate interim analyses, with the potential to stop the study for futility if early data show insufficient promise of a treatment benefit. Previously, we have shown that this approach will theoretically lead to mis-estimation of the treatment effect. We now wished to ascertain the importance of this phenomenon in practice.
methodsWe reviewed the methods and results in a set of trials that had stopped for futility, identified through an extensive literature search. We recorded clinical areas, interventions, study design, outcomes, trial setting, sponsorship, planned and actual treatment effects, sample sizes; power; and if there was a data safety monitoring board, or a published protocol. We identified: if interim analyses were pre-specified, and how many analyses actually occurred; what pre-specified criteria might define futility; if a futility analysis formed the basis for stopping; who made the decision to stop; and the conditional power of each study, i.e. the probability of statistically significant results if the study were to continue to its complete sample size.
resultsWe identified 52 eligible trials, covering many clinical areas. Most trials had multiple centres, tested drugs, and 40% were industry sponsored. There were 75% where at least one interim analysis was planned a priori; a majority had only one interim analysis, typically with about half the target total sample size. A majority of trials did not pre-define a stopping rule, and a variety of reasons were given for stopping. Few studies calculated and reported low conditional power to justify the early stop. When conditional power could be calculated, it was typically low, especially under the current trend hypothesis. However, under the original design hypothesis, a few studies had relatively high conditional power. Data collection often continued after the interim analysis.
conclusionsAlthough other factors will typically be involved, we conclude that, from the perspective of conditional power, stopping early for futility was probably reasonable in most cases, but documentation of the basis for stopping was often missing or vague. Interpretation of truncated trials would be enhanced by improved reporting of stopping protocols, and of their actual execution.
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.