Participant characteristics and exclusion from trials: a meta-analysis of individual participant-level data from phase 3/4 industry-funded trials in chronic medical conditions
Lees, J. S.; Crowther, J.; Hanlon, P.; Butterly, E.; Wild, S. H.; Mair, F. S.; Guthrie, B.; Gillies, K.; Dias, S.; Welton, N. J.; Katikireddi, S. V.; McAllister, D. A.
Show abstract
ObjectivesTrials often do not represent their target populations, threatening external validity. The aim was to assess whether age, sex, comorbidity count and/or race/ethnicity are associated with likelihood of screen failure (i.e., failure to be randomised to the trial for any reason) among potential trial participants. DesignBayesian meta-analysis of individual participant-level data (IPD). SettingIndustry-funded phase 3/4 trials in chronic medical conditions. Participants were identified as "randomised" or "screen failure" using trial IPD. ParticipantsData were available for 52 trials involving 72,178 screened individuals of whom 24,733 (34%) failed screening. Main outcome measuresFor each trial, logistic regression models were constructed to assess likelihood of screen failure, regressed on age (per 10-year increment), sex (male versus female), comorbidity count (per one additional comorbidity) and race/ethnicity. Trial-level analyses were combined in Bayesian hierarchical models with pooling across condition. ResultsIn age- and sex-adjusted models, neither age nor sex was associated with increased odds of screen failure, though weak associations were detected after additionally adjusting for comorbidity (age, per 10-year increment: odds ratio [OR] 1.02; 95% credibility interval [CI] 1.01 to 1.04 and male sex: OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.00). Comorbidity count was weakly associated with screen failure, but in an unexpected direction (OR 0.97 per additional comorbidity, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.00, adjusted for age and sex). Those who self-reported as Black were slightly more likely to fail screening (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.09); an effect which persisted after adjustment for age, sex and comorbidity count (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.12). ConclusionsAge, sex, comorbidity count and Black race/ethnicity were not strongly associated with increased likelihood of screen failure. Proportionate increases in screening these underserved populations may improve representation in trials. Trial registrationRelevant trials in chronic medical conditions were identified according to pre-specified criteria (PROSPERO CRD42018048202).
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical Trials in COVID-19 Management & Prevention: A Meta-epidemiological Study examining methodological quality 96%
- Results dissemination from clinical trials conducted at German university medical centres was delayed and incomplete 95%
- Results reporting for clinical trials led by medical universities and university hospitals in the Nordic countries was often missing or delayed 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- How Informative Were Early SARS-CoV-2 Treatment and Prevention Trials? A longitudinal cohort analysis of trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov 95%
- STIMULATE-ICP: A pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster randomised trial of an integrated care pathway with a nested, Phase III, open label, adaptive platform randomised drug trial in individuals with Long COVID: a structured protocol 95%
- Investigating the use of a one-page infographic to improve recruitment and retention to the BASIL+ Randomised Controlled Trial: A Study Within a Trial (SWAT) 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Trials that turn from retrospectively registered to prospectively registered: A cohort study of ‘retroactively prospective’ clinical trial registration using history data 95%
- Controlled evaLuation of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for COVID-19 respIraTorY disease (CLARITY): Statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled Bayesian adaptive sample size trial 93%
- UKCTOCS Update: Applying insights of delayed effects in cancer screening trials to the long-term follow-up mortality analysis 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Approaches in Analyzing Predictors of Trial Failure: A Scoping Review and Meta-epidemiological study 95%
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 94%
- Improving research transparency with individualized report cards: A feasibility study in clinical trials at a large university medical center 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Transparency and reporting characteristics of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials 95%
- Tool to assess risk of bias due to missing evidence in network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN): elaboration and examples 94%
- Postmarketing commitments for novel drugs and biologics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration: a cross-sectional analysis 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.