ArticleCancer investigation2022
Fooled by Randomness. The Misleading Effect of Treatment Crossover in Randomized Trials of Therapies with Marginal Treatment Benefit.
Article in Cancer investigation, 2022. 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.
- Existing challenges in the management of cholangiocarcinoma in Spain.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- Second-Line Systemic Therapies in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Current Insights and Future Directions.Journal of cancer immunology · 2025Article
- Postprogression therapy and confounding for the estimated treatment effect on overall survival in phase III oncology trials.BMJ oncology · 2024Article
- Interpreting Randomized Controlled Trials.Cancers · 2023Review
- Obesity and renal cell carcinoma: Biological mechanisms and perspectives.Seminars in cancer biology · 2023Review
- Less is More? First Impressions From COSMIC-313.Cancer investigation · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Crossover can bias clinical outcomes of randomized clinical trials by increasing the risk of both type I (false positive) and type II (false negative) errors. To show how crossover can increase type I error, we provide computer simulation and review herein illustrative examples (iniparib, olaratumab) of recently reported RCTs that demonstrated false-positive treatment efficacy signals due to crossover. The ethical issues associated with crossover are also discussed.
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.