2018
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020068
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Are large randomised controlled trials in severe sepsis and septic shock statistically disadvantaged by repeated inadvertent underestimates of required sample size?

Abstract: ObjectivesWe sought to understand why randomised controlled trials in septic shock have failed to demonstrate effectiveness in the face of improving overall outcomes for patients and seemingly promising results of early phase trials of interventions.DesignWe performed a retrospective analysis of large critical care trials of severe sepsis and septic shock. Data were collected from the primary trial manuscripts, prepublished statistical plans or by direct communication with corresponding authors.SettingCritical… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
11
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This translates into differences in the benefits derived from specific therapy application, which in turn handicaps sample size calculation. This can lead to the trial having less statistical power than initially planned, increasing the risk of a type two error and this is the origin of unexpected results 3. It questions the use of subgroups in an attempt to extract some kind of useful information in negative RCTs 4…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This translates into differences in the benefits derived from specific therapy application, which in turn handicaps sample size calculation. This can lead to the trial having less statistical power than initially planned, increasing the risk of a type two error and this is the origin of unexpected results 3. It questions the use of subgroups in an attempt to extract some kind of useful information in negative RCTs 4…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are several recently completed or ongoing randomized clinical trials that explored if increased water intake ameliorates ADPKD progression. One of them is a PREVENT-ADPKD pilot trial [ACTRN12614001216606 ( Wong et al, 2018 )], which should be completed in 2021, and another study is “Determining feasibility of Randomisation to high vs. ad libitum water INtake in polycystic Kidney disease” [DRINK; NCT02933268 ( El-Damanawi et al, 2018 )]. The DRINK trial has already been completed, and adult ADPKD patients with high water intake (HWI) during 8weeks showed lower urine osmolality and higher urine volume compared with patients with ad libitum water intake.…”
Section: Dietary Interventions In Pkdmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Patterns in disease history data could probably be used effectively in trial design to detect a difference between groups and to avoid use of noncomparable subgroups. 32 Furthermore, the effect of previous disease history-both diagnosis and the temporal order of diagnoses-on patient outcomes could reflect a transition of physiological systems that predisposes individuals not only to certain diagnoses but also to certain outcomes. This could explain why some survivors of sepsis return to their baseline performance status whereas others progressively decline (a decline not predicted by hospital course).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%