ArticleTrials2024
Role of central endpoint adjudication and challenges in trials on neonatal sepsis-a case of ProSPoNS trial.
Article in Trials, 2024. 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
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite progress in reducing the infant mortality in India, the neonatal mortality decline has been slower, necessitating concerted efforts to achieve Sustainable Development Goal-3. A promising strategy aiming to prevent neonatal sepsis in high-risk, vulnerable, low birth weight neonates through an innovative intervention includes probiotic supplementation. This article communicates the decision by the ProSPoNS trial investigators to establish a Central Endpoint Adjudication Committee (CEAC) as an addendum to the protocol published in Trials in 2021 for the purpose of clarifying the primary outcome. In the published protocol, the study hypothesis and primary objective are based on "sepsis," the primary outcome has been specified as sepsis/PSBI, whereas the sample size estimation was performed based on the "physician diagnosed sepsis." To align all the three above, the investigators meeting, held on 17th-18th August 2023, at MGIMS Sevagram, Wardha, deliberated and unanimously agreed that "physician diagnosed sepsis" is the primary study outcome which includes sepsis/PSBI. The CEAC, chaired by an external subject expert and members including trial statistician, a microbiologist, and all site principal investigators will employ four criteria to determine "physician diagnosed sepsis": (1) blood culture status, (2) sepsis screen status, (3) PSBI/non-PSBI signs and symptoms, and (4) the clinical course for each sickness event. Importantly, this clarification maintains consistency with the approved study protocol (Protocol No. 5/7/915/2012 version 3.1 dated 14 Feb 2020), emphasizing the commitment to methodological transparency and adherence to predefined standards. The decision to utilize the guidance of a CEAC is recommended as the gold standard in multicentric complex clinical trials to achieve consistency and accuracy in assessment of outcomes.Trial registrationClinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI) CTRI/2019/05/019197. Registered on 16 May 2019.
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.