Randomization in clinical trials in orthodontics: its significance in research design and methods to achieve it

Randomization is a key step in reducing selection bias during the treatment allocation phase in randomized clinical trials. The process of randomization follows specific steps, which include generation of the randomization list, allocation concealment, and implementation of randomization. The phenomenon in the dental and orthodontic literature of characterizing treatment allocation as random is frequent; however, often the randomization procedures followed are not appropriate. Randomization methods assign, at random, treatment to the trial arms without foreknowledge of allocation by either the participants or the investigators thus reducing selection bias. Randomization entails generation of random allocation, allocation concealment, and the actual methodology of implementing treatment allocation randomly and unpredictably. Most popular randomization methods include some form of restricted and/or stratified randomization. This article introduces the reasons, which make randomization an integral part of solid clinical trial methodology, and presents the main randomization schemes applicable to clinical trials in orthodontics.

Effect of platform switching on peri-implant bone levels: a randomized clinical trial

The concept of platform switching has been introduced to implant dentistry based on observations of reduced peri-implant bone loss. However, randomized clinical trials are still lacking. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that platform switching has a positive impact on crestal bone-level changes.

Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee

BACKGROUND: Not all clinical trials are published, which may distort the evidence that is available in the literature. We studied the publication rate of a cohort of clinical trials and identified factors associated with publication and nonpublication of results. METHODS: We analysed the protocols of randomized clinical trials of drug interventions submitted to the research ethics committee of University Hospital (Inselspital) Bern, Switzerland from 1988 to 1998. We identified full articles published up to 2006 by searching the Cochrane CENTRAL database (issue 02/2006) and by contacting investigators. We analyzed factors associated with the publication of trials using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models. RESULTS: 451 study protocols and 375 corresponding articles were analyzed. 233 protocols resulted in at least one publication, a publication rate of 52%. A total of 366 (81%) trials were commercially funded, 47 (10%) had non-commercial funding. 346 trials (77%) were multi-centre studies and 272 of these (79%) were international collaborations. In the adjusted logistic regression model non-commercial funding (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.42, 95% CI 1.14-5.17), multi-centre status (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.03-4.24), international collaboration (OR 1.87, 95% CI 0.99-3.55) and a sample size above the median of 236 participants (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.23-3.39) were associated with full publication. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of applications to an ethics committee in Switzerland, only about half of clinical drug trials were published. Large multi-centre trials with non-commercial funding were more likely to be published than other trials, but most trials were funded by industry.

Assessing the reporting quality in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in leading journals of oral implantology.

AIM Abstracts of randomized clinical trials are extremely important as trial appraisal is often based on the information included here. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of the reporting of RCT abstracts in journals of Oral Implantology. MATERIAL AND METHODS Six leading Implantology journals were screened for RCTs between years 2008 and 2012. A 21-item modified CONSORT for abstracts checklist was used to examine the completeness of abstract reporting. Descriptive statistics and linear regression modeling were employed for data analysis. RESULTS One hundred and sixty three RCT abstracts were included in this study. The majority of the RCTs were published in the Clinical Oral Implants Research (42.9%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 58.6% (95% CI: 57.6-59.7). The highest score was noted in the European Journal of Oral Implantology (63.8%; 95% CI: 61.8-65.8). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that abstract quality score was related to publication journal and number of research centers involved. Most abstracts adequately reported interventions (89.0%), objectives (77.9%) and conclusions (74.8%) while failed to report randomization procedures, allocation concealment, effect estimate, confidence intervals, and funding. Registration of RCTs was not reported in any of the abstracts. CONCLUSIONS The reporting quality in abstracts of RCTs published in Oral Implantology journals needs to be improved. Editors and authors should be encouraged to endorse the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines in order to achieve optimal quality in abstract reporting.

Chromium supplementation in patients with type 2 diabetes and high risk of type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction: Chromium is an essential trace mineral for carbohydrate and lipid metabolism, which is currently prescribed to control diabetes mellitus. Results of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses of chromium supplementation and metabolic profiles in diabetes have been inconsistent. Aim: The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess the effects on metabolic profiles and safety of chromium supplementation in type 2 diabetes mellitus and cholesterol. Methods: Literature searches in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were made by use of related terms-keywords and randomized clinical trials during the period of 2000-2014. Results: Thirteen trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. Total doses of Cr supplementation and brewer's yeast ranged from 42 to 1,000 µg/day, and duration of supplementation ranged from 30 to 120 days. The analysis indicated that there was a significant effect of chromium supplementation in diabetics on fasting plasma glucose with a weighted average effect size of -29.26 mg/dL, p = 0.01, CI 95% = -52.4 to -6.09; and on total cholesterol with a weighted average effect size of -6.7 mg/dL, p = 0.01, CI 95% = -11.88 to -1.53. Conclusions: The available evidence suggests favourable effects of chromium supplementation on glycaemic control in patients with diabetes. Chromium supplementation may additionally improve total cholesterol levels.

A pilot test of the new Swiss regulatory procedure for categorizing clinical trials by risk: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS Several countries are working to adapt clinical trial regulations to align the approval process to the level of risk for trial participants. The optimal framework to categorize clinical trials according to risk remains unclear, however. Switzerland is the first European country to adopt a risk-based categorization procedure in January 2014. We assessed how accurately and consistently clinical trials are categorized using two different approaches: an approach using criteria set forth in the new law (concept) or an intuitive approach (ad hoc). METHODS This was a randomized controlled trial with a method-comparison study nested in each arm. We used clinical trial protocols from eight Swiss ethics committees approved between 2010 and 2011. Protocols were randomly assigned to be categorized in one of three risk categories using the concept or the ad hoc approach. Each protocol was independently categorized by the trial's sponsor, a group of experts and the approving ethics committee. The primary outcome was the difference in categorization agreement between the expert group and sponsors across arms. Linear weighted kappa was used to quantify agreements, with the difference between kappas being the primary effect measure. RESULTS We included 142 of 231 protocols in the final analysis (concept = 78; ad hoc = 64). Raw agreement between the expert group and sponsors was 0.74 in the concept and 0.78 in the ad hoc arm. Chance-corrected agreement was higher in the ad hoc (kappa: 0.34 (95% confidence interval = 0.10-0.58)) than in the concept arm (0.27 (0.06-0.50)), but the difference was not significant (p = 0.67). LIMITATIONS The main limitation was the large number of protocols excluded from the analysis mostly because they did not fit with the clinical trial definition of the new law. CONCLUSION A structured risk categorization approach was not better than an ad hoc approach. Laws introducing risk-based approaches should provide guidelines, examples and templates to ensure correct application.

Clinical effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy for depression in routine care: A propensity score based comparison between randomized controlled trials and clinical practice

Background: The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for the treatment of depressive disorders has been demonstrated in many randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study investigated whether for CBT similar effects can be expected under routine care conditions when the patients are comparable to those examined in RCTs. Method: N=574 CBT patients from an outpatient clinic were stepwise matched to the patients undergoing CBT in the National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program (TDCRP). First, the exclusion criteria of the RCT were applied to the naturalistic sample of the outpatient clinic. Second, propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust the remaining naturalistic sample on the basis of baseline covariate distributions. Matched samples were then compared regarding treatment effects using effect sizes, average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) and recovery rates. Results: CBT in the adjusted naturalistic subsample was as effective as in the RCT. However, treatments lasted significantly longer under routine care conditions. Limitations: The samples included only a limited amount of common predictor variables and stemmed from different countries. There might be additional covariates, which could potentially further improve the matching between the samples. Conclusions: CBT for depression in clinical practice might be equally effective as manual-based treatments in RCTs when they are applied to comparable patients. The fact that similar effects under routine conditions were reached with more sessions, however, points to the potential to optimize treatments in clinical practice with respect to their efficiency.

Continuous safety screens for randomized controlled clinical trials with blinded treatment information

Standard methods for testing safety data are needed to ensure the safe conduct of clinical trials. In particular, objective rules for reliably identifying unsafe treatments need to be put into place to help protect patients from unnecessary harm. DMCs are uniquely qualified to evaluate accumulating unblinded data and make recommendations about the continuing safe conduct of a trial. However, it is the trial leadership who must make the tough ethical decision about stopping a trial, and they could benefit from objective statistical rules that help them judge the strength of evidence contained in the blinded data. We design early stopping rules for harm that act as continuous safety screens for randomized controlled clinical trials with blinded treatment information, which could be used by anyone, including trial investigators (and trial leadership). A Bayesian framework, with emphasis on the likelihood function, is used to allow for continuous monitoring without adjusting for multiple comparisons. Close collaboration between the statistician and the clinical investigators will be needed in order to design safety screens with good operating characteristics. Though the math underlying this procedure may be computationally intensive, implementation of the statistical rules will be easy and the continuous screening provided will give suitably early warning when real problems were to emerge. Trial investigators and trial leadership need these safety screens to help them to effectively monitor the ongoing safe conduct of clinical trials with blinded data.^

Clinical trials in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology: where we are

PURPOSE: To compare clinical trials published in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology and in foreign journals of ophthalmology with respect to the number of citations and the quality of reporting [by applying the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement writing standards]. METHODS: The sample of this systematic review comprised the two Brazilian journals of ophthalmology indexed at Science Citation Index Expanded and six of the foreign journals of ophthalmology with highest Impact Factor® according ISI. All clinical trials (CTs) published from January 2009 to December 2010 at the Brazilians journals and a 1:1 randomized sample of the foreign journals were included. The primary outcome was the number of citations through the end of 2011. Subgroup analysis included language. The secondary outcome included likelihood of citation (cited at least once versus no citation), and presence or absence of CONSORT statement indicators. RESULTS: The citation counts were statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the Foreign Group (10.50) compared with the Brazilian Group (0.45). The likelihood citation was statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the Foreign Group (20/20 - 100%) compared with the Brazilian Group (8/20 - 40%). The subgroup analysis of the language influence in Brazilian articles showed that the citation counts were statistically significantly higher in the papers published in English (P<0.04). Of 37 possible CONSORT items, the mean for the Foreign Group was 20.55 and for the Brazilian Group was 13.65 (P<0.003). CONCLUSION: The number of citations and the quality of reporting of clinical trials in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology still are low when compared with the foreign journals of ophthalmology with highest Impact Factor®.

A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of reports of clinical trials published in six Brazilian dental journals indexed in the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO)

INTRODUCTION: Open access publishing is becoming increasingly popular within the biomedical sciences. SciELO, the Scientific Electronic Library Online, is a digital library covering a selected collection of Brazilian scientific journals many of which provide open access to full-text articles.This library includes a number of dental journals some of which may include reports of clinical trials in English, Portuguese and/or Spanish. Thus, SciELO could play an important role as a source of evidence for dental healthcare interventions especially if it yields a sizeable number of high quality reports. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify reports of clinical trials by handsearching of dental journals that are accessible through SciELO, and to assess the overall quality of these reports. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic versions of six Brazilian dental Journals indexed in SciELO were handsearched at www.scielo.br in September 2008. Reports of clinical trials were identified and classified as controlled clinical trials (CCTs - prospective, experimental studies comparing 2 or more healthcare interventions in human beings) or randomized controlled trials (RCTs - a random allocation method is clearly reported), according to Cochrane eligibility criteria. CRITERIA TO ASSESS METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY INCLUDED: method of randomization, concealment of treatment allocation, blinded outcome assessment, handling of withdrawals and losses and whether an intention-to-treat analysis had been carried out. RESULTS: The search retrieved 33 CCTs and 43 RCTs. A majority of the reports provided no description of either the method of randomization (75.3%) or concealment of the allocation sequence (84.2%). Participants and outcome assessors were reported as blinded in only 31.2% of the reports. Withdrawals and losses were only clearly described in 6.5% of the reports and none mentioned an intention-to-treat analysis or any similar procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that a substantial number of reports of trials and systematic reviews are available in the dental journals listed in SciELO, and that these could provide valuable evidence for clinical decision making. However, it is clear that the quality of a number of these reports is of some concern and that improvement in the conduct and reporting of these trials could be achieved if authors adhered to internationally accepted guidelines, e.g. the CONSORT statement.

Challenges and Recommendations for Placebo Controls in Randomized Trials in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine A Report of the International Placebo Symposium Working Group

Compared with other specialties, the field of physical and rehabilitation medicine has not received the deserved recognition from clinicians and researchers in the scientific community. One of the reasons is the lack of sound evidence to support the traditional physical and rehabilitation medicine treatments. The best way to change this disadvantage is through a well conducted clinical research, such as standard placebo- or sham-controlled randomized clinical trials. Therefore, having placebo groups in clinical trials is essential to improve the level of evidence-based practice in physical and rehabilitation medicine that ultimately translates to better clinical care. To address the challenges for the use of placebo in physical and rehabilitation medicine and randomized clinical trials and to create useful recommendations, we convened a working group during the inaugural International Symposium in Placebo (February 2009, in Sao Paulo, Brazil) in which the following topics were discussed: (1) current status of randomized clinical trials in physical and rehabilitation medicine, (2) challenges for the use of placebo in physical and rehabilitation medicine, (3) bioethics, (4) use of placebo in acupuncture trials and for the treatment of low-back pain, (5) mechanisms of placebo, and (6) insights from other specialties. The current article represents the consensus report from the working group.

Randomisation in clinical trials

Randomisation is the process of assigning clinical trial participants to treatment groups. Randomisation gives each participant a known (usually equal) chance of being assigned to any of the groups. Successful randomisation requires that group assignment cannot be predicted in advance.