Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39688768›Full record

ReviewTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025

Inside the Mind of the DMC: A Review of Principles and Issues with Case Studies.

Lizhao Ge, Toshimitsu Hamasaki, Scott R Evans

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lizhao GeThe Biostatistics Center, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, Rockville, MD, USA.
Toshimitsu HamasakiThe Biostatistics Center, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, Rockville, MD, USA.
Scott R EvansThe Biostatistics Center, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, Rockville, MD, USA. sevans@bsc.gwu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A data monitoring committee (DMC) can have an extremely challenging job. Stop a trial too soon, and results are inconclusive and the trial fails to obtain answers to important questions that could inform future clinical practice. Stop a trial too late, and trial participants are exposed to potentially harmful or ineffective interventions longer than necessary. Securing convincing and conclusive evidence and the ethical responsibility to current and future patients are weighed carefully during DMC deliberations. The ability to interpret complex information, and appreciation of issues affecting scientific integrity, are critical for the DMC to protect trial participants and public trust. Challenges faced by and issues of prudence faced by DMCs are discussed including interim analysis issues, assessing the totality of information with statistical boundaries as guidelines, interpretation of composite and surrogate outcomes, reactions to early trends, benefit:risk assessment, landscape changes, subgroup analyses, composing information for a comprehensive understanding of patient-centric effects, and evaluating the value of additional data. Case studies illustrate how DMCs addressed the challenges.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicClinical Trials Data Monitoring CommitteesHumansBenefit:riskComposite endpointsConfidentialityDMCDSMBIndependence

Identifiers

PMID39688768

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.