ArticleTrials2024
Consideration of factors of low accrual and methods for setting appropriate accrual periods: Japan Clinical Oncology Group study.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPoor patient accrual can delay reporting of clinical trials and, consequently, the development of new treatments. For reducing the risk of additional resource requirements, a method for setting planned accrual periods with minimal deviation from the actual accrual periods is desirable. Risk factors for poor patient accrual and the appropriate method of estimating the required accrual period for timely completion of clinical trials were evaluated using the data of trials conducted by the Japan Clinical Oncology Group.
methodsThe study included 199 trials that started patient accrual between January 1, 1990, and June 30, 2021. The explanatory variables included factors that could be evaluated prior to trial commencement. We also evaluated whether the estimation methods for accrual pace could lead to completion within the planned accrual period.
resultsApproximately 23.6% of trials were completed within the planned accrual period. The risk factors for trial extension included planned accrual periods > 3 years (reference group: ≤ 3 years, odds ratio [OR] 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15-0.92, P = 0.033) and stratified trial design (reference group: nonrandomized phase II trials, nonrandomized phase III trial [OR: 3.28, 95% CI: 0.99-10.9, P = 0.051], randomized phase II trial [OR: 3.91, 95% CI: 0.75-20.30, P = 0.105], and randomized phase III trial [OR: 9.29, 95% CI: 3.39-25.40, P < 0.001]). The method of estimating the accrual pace based on past clinical trials facilitated timely completion of the trial (OR: 3.51; 95% CI: 1.73-7.10, P < 0.001), unlike the estimation method based on survey evaluation of the accrual pace for participating institutions (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.56-2.26, P = 0.751). Furthermore, the discrepancy between planned and actual accrual periods was minimal when using the methods of considering the accrual pace of past clinical trials.
conclusionsConsidering the accrual pace of past clinical trials is useful for estimating the required accrual period if data from past trials are available. When conducting a survey, it is necessary to be cautious of overestimating the cases at each facility.
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.