SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2022
Effect of a Run-In Period on Estimated Treatment Effects in Cardiovascular Randomized Clinical Trials: A Meta-Analytic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background A run-in period may increase adherence to intervention and reduce loss to follow-up. Whether use of a run-in period affects the magnitude of treatment effects is unknown. Methods and Results We conducted a meta-analysis comparing treatment effects from 11 systematic reviews of cardiovascular prevention trials using a run-in period with matched trials not using a run-in period. We matched run-in with non-run-in trials by population, intervention, control, and outcome. We calculated a ratio of relative risks (RRRs) using a random-effects meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular events, and the primary analysis was a matched comparison of clinical trials using a run-in period versus without a run-in period. We identified 66 run-in trials and 111 non-run-in trials (n=668 901). On meta-analysis there was no statistically significant difference in the magnitude of treatment effect between run-in trials (relative risk [RR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.80-0.87]) compared with non-run-in trials (RR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.84-0.91]; RRR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-1.01]). There was no significant difference in the RRR for secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality (RRR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.91-1.03]) or medication discontinuation because of adverse events (RRR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.85-1.21]). Post hoc exploratory univariate meta-regression showed that on average a run-in period is associated with a statistically significant difference in treatment effect (RRR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.90-0.99]) for cardiovascular composite outcome, but this was not statistically significant on multivariable meta-regression analysis (RRR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-1.0]). Conclusions The use of a run-in period was not associated with a difference in the magnitude of treatment effect among cardiovascular prevention trials.
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.