What is the influence of randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment on treatment effects of physical therapy trials? A meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVE To determine if adequacy of randomisation and allocation concealment is associated with changes in effect sizes (ES) when comparing physical therapy (PT) trials with and without these methodological characteristics. DESIGN Meta-epidemiological study. PARTICIPANTS A random sample of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included in meta-analyses in the PT discipline were identified. INTERVENTION Data extraction including assessments of random sequence generation and allocation concealment was conducted independently by two reviewers. To determine the association between sequence generation, and allocation concealment and ES, a two-level analysis was conducted using a meta-meta-analytic approach. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES association between random sequence generation and allocation concealment and ES in PT trials. RESULTS 393 trials included in 43 meta-analyses, analysing 44 622 patients contributed to this study. Adequate random sequence generation and appropriate allocation concealment were accomplished in only 39.7% and 11.5% of PT trials, respectively. Although trials with inappropriate allocation concealment tended to have an overestimate treatment effect when compared with trials with adequate concealment of allocation, the difference was non-statistically significant (ES=0.12; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.30). When pooling our results with those of Nuesch et al, we obtained a pooled statistically significant value (ES=0.14; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.26). There was no difference in ES in trials with appropriate or inappropriate random sequence generation (ES=0.02; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.15). CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that when evaluating risk of bias of primary RCTs in PT area, systematic reviewers and clinicians implementing research into practice should pay attention to these biases since they could exaggerate treatment effects. Systematic reviewers should perform sensitivity analysis including trials with low risk of bias in these domains as primary analysis and/or in combination with less restrictive analyses. Authors and editors should make sure that allocation concealment and random sequence generation are properly reported in trial reports.

Treatment allocation in hepatocellular carcinoma: Assessment of the BCLC algorithm

BACKGROUND AND AIMS The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system is the algorithm most widely used to manage patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to investigate the extent to which the BCLC recommendations effectively guide clinical practice and assess the reasons for any deviation from the recommendations. MATERIAL AND METHODS The first-line treatments assigned to patients included in the prospective Bern HCC cohort were analyzed. RESULTS Among 223 patients included in the cohort, 116 were not treated according to the BCLC algorithm. Eighty percent of the patients in BCLC stage 0 (very early HCC) and 60% of the patients in BCLC stage A (early HCC) received recommended curative treatment. Only 29% of the BCLC stage B patients (intermediate HCC) and 33% of the BCLC stage C patients (advanced HCC) were treated according to the algorithm. Eighty-nine percent of the BCLC stage D patients (terminal HCC) were treated with best supportive care, as recommended. In 98 patients (44%) the performance status was disregarded in the stage assignment. CONCLUSION The management of HCC in clinical practice frequently deviates from the BCLC recommendations. Most of the curative therapy options, which have well-defined selection criteria, were allocated according to the recommendations, while the majority of the palliative therapy options were assigned to patients with tumor stages not aligned with the recommendations. The only parameter which is subjective in the algorithm, the performance status, is also the least respected.