Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the association of inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and lack of blinding with biased estimates of intervention effects varies with the nature of the intervention or outcome. DESIGN: Combined analysis of data from three meta-epidemiological studies based on collections of meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: 146 meta-analyses including 1346 trials examining a wide range of interventions and outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ratios of odds ratios quantifying the degree of bias associated with inadequate or unclear allocation concealment, and lack of blinding, for trials with different types of intervention and outcome. A ratio of odds ratios <1 implies that inadequately concealed or non-blinded trials exaggerate intervention effect estimates. RESULTS: In trials with subjective outcomes effect estimates were exaggerated when there was inadequate or unclear allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios 0.69 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.82)) or lack of blinding (0.75 (0.61 to 0.93)). In contrast, there was little evidence of bias in trials with objective outcomes: ratios of odds ratios 0.91 (0.80 to 1.03) for inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and 1.01 (0.92 to 1.10) for lack of blinding. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of drug and non-drug interventions. Except for trials with all cause mortality as the outcome, the magnitude of bias varied between meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The average bias associated with defects in the conduct of randomised trials varies with the type of outcome. Systematic reviewers should routinely assess the risk of bias in the results of trials, and should report meta-analyses restricted to trials at low risk of bias either as the primary analysis or in conjunction with less restrictive analyses.

The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether excluding patients from the analysis of randomised trials are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects and higher heterogeneity between trials. DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study based on a collection of meta-analyses of randomised trials. DATA SOURCES: 14 meta-analyses including 167 trials that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or non-intervention control in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee and used patient reported pain as an outcome. METHODS: Effect sizes were calculated from differences in means of pain intensity between groups at the end of follow-up, divided by the pooled standard deviation. Trials were combined by using random effects meta-analysis. Estimates of treatment effects were compared between trials with and trials without exclusions from the analysis, and the impact of restricting meta-analyses to trials without exclusions was assessed. RESULTS: 39 trials (23%) had included all patients in the analysis. In 128 trials (77%) some patients were excluded from the analysis. Effect sizes from trials with exclusions tended to be more beneficial than those from trials without exclusions (difference -0.13, 95% confidence interval -0.29 to 0.04). However, estimates of bias between individual meta-analyses varied considerably (tau(2)=0.07). Tests of interaction between exclusions from the analysis and estimates of treatment effects were positive in five meta-analyses. Stratified analyses indicated that differences in effect sizes between trials with and trials without exclusions were more pronounced in meta-analyses with high between trial heterogeneity, in meta-analyses with large estimated treatment benefits, and in meta-analyses of complementary medicine. Restriction of meta-analyses to trials without exclusions resulted in smaller estimated treatment benefits, larger P values, and considerable decreases in between trial heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Excluding patients from the analysis in randomised trials often results in biased estimates of treatment effects, but the extent and direction of bias is unpredictable. Results from intention to treat analyses should always be described in reports of randomised trials. In systematic reviews, the influence of exclusions from the analysis on estimated treatment effects should routinely be assessed.

One-year outcomes of repeated adjunctive photodynamic therapy during periodontal maintenance: a proof-of-principle randomized-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Single photodynamic therapy (PDT) has been effective in initial periodontal therapy, but only improved bleeding on probing (BoP) in maintenance patients after a single use. Repeated PDT has not been addressed. OBJECTIVES: To study the possible added benefits of repeated adjunctive PDT to conventional treatment of residual pockets in patients enrolled in periodontal maintenance. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten maintenance patients with 70 residual pockets [probing pocket depth (PPD)>or=5 mm] were randomly assigned for treatment five times in 2 weeks (Days 0, 1, 2, 7, 14) with PDT (test) or non-activated laser (control) following debridement. The primary outcome variable was PPD, and the secondary variables were clinical attachment level (CAL) and BoP. These were assessed at 3, 6 and 12 months following the interventions. RESULTS: Greater PPD reductions were observed in the test (-0.67 +/- 0.34; p=0.01) compared with the control patients (-0.04 +/- 0.33; NS) after 6 months. Significant CAL gain (+0.52 +/- 0.31; p=0.01) was noted for the test, but not in the control (-0.27 +/- 0.52; NS) patients after 6 months. BoP percentages decreased significantly in test (97-64%, 67%, 77%), but not control patients after 3, 6 and 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated (five times) PDT adjunctive to debridement yielded improved clinical outcomes in residual pockets in maintenance patients. The effects were best documented after 6 months.

Randomized controlled trial comparing a variable-thread novel tapered and a standard tapered implant: interim one-year results

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A tapered implant with continuously changing threads purported to provide stable tissue support and allow immediate function has been developed. Treatment success and stabilization of supporting tissues over time require documentation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study was to evaluate changes in bone level and soft tissue behavior between the novel implant (NobelActive/NA) and a standard tapered implant (NobelReplace Tapered Groovy/NR) with regard to immediate function. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 177 patients randomly allocated to 3 treatment groups (2 different test implant groups: NA Internal (n=117; internal connection) and External (n=82), and 1 standard treatment group, NR (n=126)) received 325 implants. Implants were placed into healed sites, and all but 6 implants were immediately nonocclusally loaded. Clinical and radiographic evaluations of treatment success, crestal bone levels, and soft tissue changes were performed at the time of placement and after 3, 6, and 12 months. Log-Rank test was used to analyze the differences in survival rate. Marginal bone level was compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U-test (alpha=.05). RESULTS: One-year cumulative survival rates were comparable (96.6% for NA Internal; 96.3% for NA External; 97.6% for NR; P=.852; Log-Rank). Mean (SD) change in bone level was -0.95 mm (1.37) for NA Internal, -0.64 mm (0.97) for NA External, and -0.63 mm (1.18) for NR (P=.589; Kruskal-Wallis). Stable soft tissues and significantly increased papilla scores (P<.001; Wilcoxon signed-rank) were observed for all implant types. CONCLUSIONS: The novel implants showed high survival rates as well as stable bone and soft tissue levels after 1 year, and may be recommended for clinical use, even under immediate function.

Rivastigmine for the prevention of postoperative delirium in elderly patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery--a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: Cardiac surgery is frequently followed by postoperative delirium, which is associated with increased 1-year mortality, late cognitive deficits, and higher costs. Currently, there are no recommendations for pharmacologic prevention of postoperative delirium. Impaired cholinergic transmission is believed to play an important role in the development of delirium. We tested the hypothesis that prophylactic short-term administration of oral rivastigmine, a cholinesterase inhibitor, reduces the incidence of delirium in elderly patients during the first 6 days after elective cardiac surgery. DESIGN:: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: One Swiss University Hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred twenty patients aged 65 or older undergoing elective cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or 3 doses of 1.5 mg of oral rivastigmine per day starting the evening before surgery and continuing until the evening of the sixth postoperative day. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary predefined outcome was delirium diagnosed with the Confusion Assessment Method within 6 days postoperatively. Secondary outcome measures were the results of daily Mini-Mental State Examinations and clock drawing tests, and the use of a rescue treatment consisting of haloperidol and/or lorazepam in patients with delirium. Delirium developed in 17 of 57 (30%) and 18 of 56 (32%) patients in the placebo and rivastigmine groups, respectively (p = 0.8). There was no treatment effect on the time course of Mini-Mental State Examinations and clock drawing tests (p = 0.4 and p = 0.8, respectively). There was no significant difference in the number of patients receiving haloperidol (18 of 57 and 17 of 56, p = 0.9) or lorazepam (38 of 57 and 35 of 56, p = 0.6) in the placebo and rivastigmine groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: This negative or, because of methodologic issues, possibly failed trial does not support short-term prophylactic administration of oral rivastigmine to prevent postoperative delirium in elderly patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.

Better conduct of clinical trials: the control group in critical care trials

OBJECTIVE: To review trial design issues related to control groups. DESIGN: Review of the literature with specific reference to critical care trials. MAIN RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Performing randomized controlled trials in the critical care setting presents specific problems: studies include patients with rapidly lethal conditions, the majority of intensive care patients suffer from syndromes rather than from well-definable diseases, the severity of such syndromes cannot be precisely assessed, and the treatment consists of interacting therapies. Interactions between physiology, pathophysiology, and therapies are at best marginally understood and may have a major impact on study design and interpretation of results. Selection of the right control group is crucial for the interpretation and clinical implementation of results. Studies comparing new interventions with current ones or different levels of current treatments have the problem of the necessity of defining "usual care." Usual care controls without any constraints typically include substantial heterogeneity. Constraints in the usual therapy may help to reduce some variation. Inclusion of unrestricted usual care groups may help to enhance safety. Practice misalignment is a novel problem in which patients receive a treatment that is the direct opposite of usual care, and occurs when fixed-dose interventions are used in situations where care is normally titrated. Practice misalignment should be considered in the design and interpretation of studies on titrated therapies.

Rapid tranquilization of severely agitated patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a naturalistic, rater-blinded, randomized, controlled study with oral haloperidol, risperidone, and olanzapine

INTRODUCTION Agitation is a major problem in acute schizophrenia. Only a few studies have tested antipsychotic agents in severely agitated patients, mainly because of legal issues. Furthermore, most studies were limited to the first 24 hours. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of oral haloperidol, risperidone, and olanzapine in reducing psychotic agitation in severely agitated patients with schizophrenia or schizophreniform or schizoaffective disorder over 96 hours using a prospective, randomized, rater-blinded, controlled design within a naturalistic treatment regimen. METHODS In total, 43 severely agitated patients at acute care psychiatric units were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either daily haloperidol 15 mg, olanzapine 20 mg, or risperidone 2 to 6 mg over 5 days. Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale psychotic agitation subscale score was the primary outcome variable. A mixed-model analysis was applied. RESULTS All drugs were effective for rapid tranquilization within 2 hours. Over 5 days, the course differed between agents (P < 0.001), but none was superior. Dropouts occurred only in the risperidone and olanzapine groups. Men responded better to treatment than did women during the initial 2 hours (P = 0.046) as well as over the 5-day course (P < 0.001). No difference between drug groups was observed regarding diazepam or biperiden use. CONCLUSIONS Oral haloperidol, risperidone, and olanzapine seem to be suitable for treating acute severe psychotic agitation in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Response to oral antipsychotics demonstrated a gender effect with poorer outcome in women throughout the study.

Survival of bonded lingual retainers with chemical or photo polymerization over a 2-year period: a single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION The objective of this trial was to compare the survival rates of mandibular lingual retainers bonded with either chemically cured or light-cured adhesive after orthodontic treatment. METHODS Patients having undergone orthodontic treatment at a private orthodontic office were randomly allocated to fixed retainers placed with chemically cured composite or light-cured composite. Eligibility criteria included no active caries, restorations, or fractures on the mandibular anterior teeth, and adequate oral hygiene. The main outcome was any type of first-time lingual retainer breakage; pattern of failure (adapted adhesive remnant index scores) was a secondary outcome. Randomization was accomplished with random permuted blocks of 20 patients with allocation concealed in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Blinding was applicable for outcome assessment only. Patients were reviewed at 1, 3, and 6 months and then every 6 months after placement of the retainer until completion of the study. Data were analyzed using survival analysis including Cox regression; sensitivity analysis was carried out after data imputation for subjects lost to follow-up. RESULTS Two hundred twenty patients (median age, 16 years; interquartile range, 2; range, 12-47 years) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either chemical or light curing. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, the median follow-up period was 2.19 years (range, 0.003-3.64 years), and 16 patients were lost to follow-up. At a minimum follow-up of 2 years, 47 of 110 (42.7%) and 55 of 110 (50.0%) retainers had some type of failure with chemically cured and light-cured adhesive, respectively (log-rank test, P = 0.35). Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis, and the hazard ratio (HR) was 1.15 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.70; P = 0.47). There was weak evidence that age is a significant predictor for lingual retainer failures (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-1.00; P = 0.08). Adhesive remnant index scoring was possible for only 66 of the 102 (64.7%) failures and did not differ between composites (Fisher exact test, P = 0.16). No serious harm was observed other than gingivitis associated with plaque accumulation. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study indicated no evidence that survival of mandibular lingual retainers differs between chemically and light-cured adhesives. The overall failure rate was 46.4%; however, this included any type of failure, which may have exaggerated the overall failure rate.

Bisphenol-A and residual monomer leaching from orthodontic adhesive resins and polycarbonate brackets: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION The objective of this systematic review was to assess the short- and long-term release of components of orthodontic adhesives and polycarbonate brackets in the oral environment. METHODS Electronic database searches of published and unpublished literature were performed. The following electronic databases with no language and publication date restrictions were searched: MEDLINE (via Ovid and PubMed), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, and CENTRAL. Unpublished literature was searched on ClinicalTrials.gov, the National Research Register, and Pro-Quest Dissertation Abstracts and Thesis database. The reference lists of all eligible studies were checked for additional studies. Two review authors performed data extraction independently and in duplicate using data collection forms. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or the involvement of an arbiter. RESULTS No randomized controlled trial was identified. In the absence of randomized controlled trials, observational studies were included. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. All were observational studies conducted in vivo or in vitro. The bisphenol-A release from orthodontic bonding resins was found to be between 0.85 and 20.88 ng per milliliter in vivo, and from traces to 65.67 ppm in vitro. Polycarbonate brackets released amounts of 22.24 μg per gram in ethanol solution and 697 μg per gram after 40 months in water. Bis-GMA and TEGDMA leaching in vitro reached levels of 64 and 174 mg per 10 μL, respectively. Because of the heterogeneity in methodologies and reporting, only qualitative synthesis was performed. CONCLUSIONS The available evidence on this topic derived from observational in-vivo and in-vitro studies that represent a moderate level of evidence. The variety of setups and the different units allied to the diversity of reporting among studies did not allow calculation of pooled estimates.