Search

Background Temporal changes in the placebo arm of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not been thoroughly investigated, despite the fact that results of RCTs depend on the comparison between arms. Methods In this update of our earlier systematic review and meta-analysis, we set out to investigate the effect of assessment time and number of visits on the magnitude of change from baseline in the placebo arm of these trials. We used linear mixed-effects models to account for within-trial correlations. Results Across all 47 trials the magnitude of response in the placebo arm did not change with time (β = -0.0070, 95% CI -0.024, 0.010) or visit (β = -0.033, 95% CI -0.082, 0.017) and remained significantly different from baseline for at least 12 months or seven follow-up visits. Change in the placebo arm in trials with subjective outcomes was large (β0 = 0.68, 95% CI 0.53, 0.82) and relatively constant across time (β = -0.0042, 95% CI -0.024, 0.016) and visit (β = -0.029, 95% CI -0.089, 0.031), whereas in trials with objective outcomes the response was smaller (β0 = 0.28, 95% CI 0.11, 0.46) and diminished with time (β = -0.030, 95% CI -0.050, -0.010), but not with visit (β = -0.099, 95% CI -0.30, 0.11). For trials with assessed outcomes, there was no significant effect of time (β = -0.0071, 95% CI -0.026, 0.011) or visit (β = -0.032, 95% CI -0.33, 0.26); however, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of studies, and high clinical heterogeneity between studies. In trials with pain as an outcome, the improvement was significant (β0 = 0.91, 95% CI 0.75, 1.07), but there was no effect of time (β = -0.013, 95% CI -0.06, 0.03) or visit (β = -0.045, 95% CI -0.16, 0.069), and pain ratings remained significantly different from baseline for 12 months or seven visits. Conclusions These results are consistent with our previous findings. In trials with subjective outcomes response in the placebo arm remains large and relatively constant for at least a year, which is interesting considering that this is an effect of a single application of an invasive procedure. The lack of effect of time and visit number on subjective outcomes raises further questions regarding whether the observed response is the result of placebo effect or the result of bias. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2070-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Malignant pleural mesothelioma is an incurable cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. The United Kingdom has the highest death rate from mesothelioma in the world and this figure is increasing. Median survival is 8 to 12 months, and most patients have symptoms at diagnosis. The fittest patients may be offered chemotherapy with palliative intent. For patients not fit for systemic anticancer treatment, best supportive care remains the mainstay of management. A study from the United States examining advanced lung cancer showed that early specialist palliative care input improved patient health related quality of life and depression symptoms 12 weeks after diagnosis. While mesothelioma and advanced lung cancer share many symptoms and have a poor prognosis, oncology and palliative care services in the United Kingdom, and many other countries, vary considerably compared to the United States. The aim of this trial is to assess whether regular early symptom control treatment provided by palliative care specialists can improve health related quality of life in patients newly diagnosed with mesothelioma. Methods This multicentre study is an non-blinded, randomised controlled, parallel group trial. A total of 174 patients with a new diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma will be minimised with a random element in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 4weekly regular early specialist symptom control care, or standard care. The primary outcome is health related quality of life for patients at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes include health related quality of life for patients at 24 weeks, carer health related quality of life at 12 and 24 weeks, patient and carer mood at 12 and 24 weeks, overall survival and analysis of healthcare utilisation and cost. Discussion Current practice in the United Kingdom is to involve specialist palliative care towards the final weeks or months of a life-limiting illness. This study aims to investigate whether early, regular specialist care input can result in significant health related quality of life gains for patients with mesothelioma and if this change in treatment model is cost-effective. The results will be widely applicable to many institutions and patients both in the United Kingdom and internationally. Trial registration Current controlled trials ISRCTN18955704. Date ISRCTN assigned: 31 January 2014. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-367) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

International audience; BACKGROUND: For a randomized trial, the primary publication is usually the one which reports the results of the primary outcome and provides consolidated data from all study centers. Other aspects of a randomized trial's findings (that is, non-primary results) are often reported in subsequent publications. METHODS: We carried out a cross-sectional review of the characteristics and type of information reported in non-primary reports (n = 69) of randomized trials (indexed in PubMed core clinical journals in 2009) and whether they report pre-specified or exploratory analyses. We also compared consistency of information in non-primary publications with that reported in the primary publication. RESULTS: The majority (n = 56; 81%) of non-primary publications were large, multicenter trials, published in specialty journals. Most reported subgroup analyses (n = 27; 39%), analyzing a specific subgroup of patients from the randomized trial, or reported on secondary outcomes (n = 29; 42%); 19% (n = 13) reported extended follow-up. Less than half reported details of trial registration (n = 30; 43%) or the trial protocol (n = 27; 39%) and in 41% (n = 28) it was unclear from reading the abstract that the report was not the primary publication for the trial. Non-primary publications often analyzed and reported multiple different outcomes (16% reported >20 outcomes) and in 10% (n = 7) it was unclear how many outcomes had actually been assessed; in 42% (n = 29) it was unclear whether the analyses reported were pre-specified or exploratory. Only 39% (n = 27) of non-primary publications described the primary outcome of the randomized trial, 6% (n = 4) reported its numerical results and 9% (n = 6) details of how participants were randomized. CONCLUSION: Non-primary publications often lack important information about the randomized trial and the type of analyses conducted and whether these were pre-specified or exploratory to enable readers to accurately identify and assess the validity and reliably of the study findings. We provide recommendations for what information authors should include in non-primary reports of randomized trials.