ReviewContemporary clinical trials communications2024
Run-in periods and treatment outcomes in asthma trials: A narrative review.
Review in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2024. 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.
- Value of the Run-In Period to Evaluate the Safety of Conventional Trypanocidal Treatment: A Subanalysis of a Colombian Randomized Clinical Trial.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2026Trial
- Comparison of extrafine and non-extrafine inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β2-agonists as maintenance and reliever therapy in asthma: a randomized open-label crossover trial.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2025Trial
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The run-in period is an important element of randomized controlled trials, and is often used in respiratory disease trials. The design of the run-in period can greatly impact results and data interpretation, and as such should be designed carefully. Methods: In this review, we describe the design of run-in periods across six phase 3A trials of triple therapy in asthma, and discuss how differences in run-in period design (specifically the duration, treatment, and reporting of run-in results) may have the potential to alter the interpretation of study outcomes. Results: We found that the duration of run-in periods ranged between 2 and 7 weeks, with some studies including a combination of screening, run-in and stabilization periods, and others including a run-in period only. Run-in treatment also varied, with some studies running in patients on their previous inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β Conclusion: We discuss the potential implications associated with the various trial designs, and propose that run-in periods should be consciously designed to meet the goals of the specific study. We also propose that standardized reporting of run-in changes would further allow for differentiation between improvements due to improved adherence and true treatment benefits, and aid with comparing data from different clinical 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.