Analyse comparee des modes d'adjudication appliques aux bons du tresor.

Rapport de recherche

Clinical endpoint adjudication in a contemporary all-comers coronary stent investigation: methodology and external validation

Globalisation in coronary stent research calls for harmonization of clinical endpoint definitions and event adjudication. Little has been published about the various processes used for event adjudication or their impact on outcome reporting.

Adjudication-related processes are underreported and lack standardization in clinical trials of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES Although the use of an adjudication committee (AC) for outcomes is recommended in randomized controlled trials, there are limited data on the process of adjudication. We therefore aimed to assess whether the reporting of the adjudication process in venous thromboembolism (VTE) trials meets existing quality standards and which characteristics of trials influence the use of an AC. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We systematically searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 2003, to June 1, 2012, for randomized controlled trials on VTE. We abstracted information about characteristics and quality of trials and reporting of adjudication processes. We used stepwise backward logistic regression model to identify trial characteristics independently associated with the use of an AC. RESULTS We included 161 trials. Of these, 68.9% (111 of 161) reported the use of an AC. Overall, 99.1% (110 of 111) of trials with an AC used independent or blinded ACs, 14.4% (16 of 111) reported how the adjudication decision was reached within the AC, and 4.5% (5 of 111) reported on whether the reliability of adjudication was assessed. In multivariate analyses, multicenter trials [odds ratio (OR), 8.6; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.7, 27.8], use of a data safety-monitoring board (OR, 3.7; 95% CI: 1.2, 11.6), and VTE as the primary outcome (OR, 5.7; 95% CI: 1.7, 19.4) were associated with the use of an AC. Trials without random allocation concealment (OR, 0.3; 95% CI: 0.1, 0.8) and open-label trials (OR, 0.3; 95% CI: 0.1, 1.0) were less likely to report an AC. CONCLUSION Recommended processes of adjudication are underreported and lack standardization in VTE-related clinical trials. The use of an AC varies substantially by trial characteristics.

Special Adjudication for Enforcement (SAFE) - executive summary.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Special Adjudication for Enforcement (SAFE) - Volume II.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

State of Rhode Island Special Adjudication for Enforcement - volume II: evaluation of driver retraining schools. Analytic study. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Driver and Pedestrian Programs, Washington, D.C.

State of Rhode Island Special Adjudication for Enforcement - volume III: analysis of the administrative adjudication of traffic offenses. Analytic study. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Driver and Pedestrian Programs, Washington, D.C.

State of Rhode Island Special Adjudication for Enforcement - technical summary. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Driver and Pedestrian Programs, Washington, D.C.

Special Adjudication For Enforcement (SAFE) - Seattle. Supplement. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.