Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33468202›Full record

ArticleTrials2021

Utilising benefit-risk assessments within clinical trials-a protocol for the BRAINS project.

Nikki Totton, Steven Julious, Dyfrig Hughes, Jonathan Cook, Katie Biggs, Lizzie Coates, Andrew Cook, Catherine Hewitt, Simon Day

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Nikki TottonSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. n.v.totton@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1900-2773
Steven JuliousSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Dyfrig HughesCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Jonathan CookCentre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Katie BiggsSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Lizzie CoatesSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Andrew CookWessex Institute, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Catherine HewittYork Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Simon DayClinical Trials Consulting & Training Limited, Buckingham, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_18018
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDepending on the treatment to be investigated, a clinical trial could be designed to assess objectives of superiority, equivalence or non-inferiority. The design of the study is affected by many different elements including the control treatment, the primary outcome and associated relationships. In some studies, there could be more than one outcome of interest. In these situations, benefit-risk methodologies could be used to assess the outcomes simultaneously and consider the trade-off between the benefits against the risks of a treatment. Benefit-risk is used within the regulatory industry but seldom included within publicly funded clinical trials within the UK. This project aims to gain an expert consensus on how to select the appropriate trial design (e.g. superiority) and when to consider including benefit-risk methods.

methodsThe project will consist of four work packages: 1. A web-based survey to elicit current experiences and opinions, 2. A rapid literature review to assess any current recommendations, 3. A two-day consensus workshop to gain agreement on the recommendations, and 4. Production of a guidance document. DISCUSSION: The aim of the project is to provide a guideline for clinical researchers, grant funding bodies and reviewers for grant bodies for how to select the most appropriate trial design and when it is appropriate to consider using benefit-risk methods. The focus of the guideline will be on publicly funded trials however, the vision is that the work will be applicable across research settings and we will connect with other organisations and committees as appropriate.

Indexed as

Research PersonnelConsensusHumansRisk AssessmentSurveys and QuestionnairesBenefit-riskHealth technology assessmentRandomised controlled trials

Identifiers

PMID33468202
PMCPMC7814532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.