ArticleJournal of cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society2023
Potential implicit bias in attribution of adverse events in randomized controlled trials in cystic fibrosis.
Article in Journal of cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAlthough work to date in cystic fibrosis (CF) has elucidated frequencies and characteristics of adverse events, the accuracy of attribution of relatedness to study drug by investigators has not been assessed. We aimed to determine whether there was an association of attribution by group allocation in CF clinical trials.
methodsWe conducted a secondary analysis from 4 CF trials of all persons who experienced an AE. Our primary outcome was the odds of an AE related to active study drug and predictor of interest was the treatment allocation. We constructed a multivariable generalized estimating equation model allowing for repeated measures.
resultsA total of 785 subjects (47.5% female, mean age 12 years) had 11,974 AEs, of which 430 were serious. AE attribution was greater with receipt of active study drug as compared to placebo but did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.98-1.82). Significantly associated factors included female sex (OR 0.58, 95% 0.39-0.87), age (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.06-1.46) and baseline lung function (per 10%, OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05-1.28).
conclusionIn our large study, there was a non-significant but greater odds of AE attribution (a key element of clinical trial reporting) to active study drug based on assigned treatment to study drug or control which suggests that there is a trend in physicians to attribute blinded safety data to the active drug. Interestingly, females were less likely to have AE attribution to study drug and warrants further work in development and validation of monitoring guidelines and processes.
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.