We have located links that may give you full text access.
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Sample Size Methodology for Traumatic Hemorrhage Trials.
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 2023 March 8
BACKGROUND: Trauma hemorrhage remains the most common cause of preventable mortality in trauma. In order to guide clinical practice, RCTs provide high-quality evidence to inform clinical decision making. The clinical relevance and inferences made by RCTs are dependent on assumptions made during sample size calculation.
METHODS: To describe the quality of methodology for sample size determination, we conducted a systemic review RCTs evaluating interventions that aim to improve survival in adults with trauma related hemorrhage. Estimated and actual outcome data is compared, including components of sample size determination.
RESULTS: A total of 13 RCTs were included. We noted a high rate of negative trial results (11 of 13 studies). Most studies were multi-center and conducted in North America, evaluating patients with blunt and penetrating injuries. The criteria for hemorrhagic shock varied across studies. All studies did not accurately estimate the mortality rate during sample size calculation. All but one study overestimated the mortality reduction during sample size calculation; the median absolute mortality reduction was 3%, compared to a target of 10%. Only the CRASH-2 study used a minimal clinically important different for treatment effect target. No RCTs employed prognostic enrichment. Most studies were terminated (8 of 13), mainly for futility.
CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, this review highlights that current clinical trial methodology is limited by imprecise control group risk estimates, overly optimistic treatment effect estimates and lack of transparent justification for such targets. These limitations result in studies at high risk for futility and potentially premature abandonment of promising therapies. Given the high morbidity and mortality of trauma-related hemorrhage, we recommend that future conduct of trauma RCTs incorporate 1) prognostic enrichment to inform baseline risk, (2) justify target treatment differences based on clinical importance and realistic estimates of feasibility, and (3) be transparent and provide justification for the assumptions made.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review/Meta Analysis; Level II.
METHODS: To describe the quality of methodology for sample size determination, we conducted a systemic review RCTs evaluating interventions that aim to improve survival in adults with trauma related hemorrhage. Estimated and actual outcome data is compared, including components of sample size determination.
RESULTS: A total of 13 RCTs were included. We noted a high rate of negative trial results (11 of 13 studies). Most studies were multi-center and conducted in North America, evaluating patients with blunt and penetrating injuries. The criteria for hemorrhagic shock varied across studies. All studies did not accurately estimate the mortality rate during sample size calculation. All but one study overestimated the mortality reduction during sample size calculation; the median absolute mortality reduction was 3%, compared to a target of 10%. Only the CRASH-2 study used a minimal clinically important different for treatment effect target. No RCTs employed prognostic enrichment. Most studies were terminated (8 of 13), mainly for futility.
CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, this review highlights that current clinical trial methodology is limited by imprecise control group risk estimates, overly optimistic treatment effect estimates and lack of transparent justification for such targets. These limitations result in studies at high risk for futility and potentially premature abandonment of promising therapies. Given the high morbidity and mortality of trauma-related hemorrhage, we recommend that future conduct of trauma RCTs incorporate 1) prognostic enrichment to inform baseline risk, (2) justify target treatment differences based on clinical importance and realistic estimates of feasibility, and (3) be transparent and provide justification for the assumptions made.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review/Meta Analysis; Level II.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Executive Summary: State-of-the-Art Review: Unintended Consequences: Risk of Opportunistic Infections Associated with Long-term Glucocorticoid Therapies in Adults.Clinical Infectious Diseases 2024 April 11
Clinical practice guidelines on the management of status epilepticus in adults: A systematic review.Epilepsia 2024 April 13
Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemias: Classifications, Pathophysiology, Diagnoses and Management.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 13
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app