ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2022
Dose escalations in phase I studies: Feasibility of interpreting blinded pharmacodynamic data.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpretation of Chemistry, Hematology and Coagulation Laboratory Results in Early-Phase Clinical Pharmacology Trials; a Retrospective Analysis Based on the Placebo Arm of Randomized-Controlled Trials.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Dose escalations in phase I studies: Feasibility of interpreting blinded pharmacodynamic data.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsDuring phase I study conduct, blinded data are reviewed to predict the safety of increasing the dose level. The aim of the present study was to describe the probability that effects are observed in blinded evaluations of data in a simulated phase I study design.
methodsAn application was created to simulate blinded pharmacological response curves over time for 6 common safety/efficacy measurements in phase I studies for 1 or 2 cohorts (6 active, 2 placebo per cohort). Effect sizes between 0 and 3 between-measurement standard deviations (SDs) were simulated. Each set of simulated graphs contained the individual response and mean ± SD over time. Reviewers (n = 34) reviewed a median of 100 simulated datasets and indicated whether an effect was present.
resultsIncreasing effect sizes resulted in a higher chance of the effect being identified by the blinded reviewer. On average, 6% of effect sizes of 0.5 between-measurement SD were correctly identified, increasing to 72% in 3.0 between-measurement SD effect sizes. In contrast, on average 92-95% of simulations with no effect were correctly identified, with little effect of between-measurement variability in single cohort simulations. Adding a dataset of a second cohort at half the simulated dose did not appear to improve the interpretation.
conclusionOur analysis showed that effect sizes <2× the between-measurement SD of the investigated outcome frequently go unnoticed by blinded reviewers, indicating that the weight given to these blinded analyses in current phase I practice is inappropriate and should be re-evaluated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35895751What 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.