Barriers to participant retention in knee osteoarthritis clinical trials: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the reasons and rates of attrition in knee osteoarthritis trials through a systematic review of randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials. METHODS: Randomized trials were identified by searches conducted in MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We then attempted to identify and describe the reasons for attrition and their associated themes. For each theme, we calculated the rate of patients who discontinued a trial from the total number of dropouts in each trial. The rates obtained with different trials were combined using a random effects model. We also performed a random effects meta-regression analysis to identify sources associated with the rates. RESULTS: Overall, 259 studies consisting of 266 trials and 13,593 patients were included in the analysis. From these, we short-listed 54 attrition reasons and identified 21 key themes. "Ineffectiveness" and "adverse event" were the reasons frequently reported by >5% of the dropouts. On further investigation of the theme ineffectiveness, the attrition rate was associated with delivery routes of treatment, trial duration, flare design, prohibition of usual analgesics, and allowing the use of escape medication. In cases of adverse events, we found that the treatment type and delivery route affected the attrition rate. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings not only support the importance of the intention-to-treat analysis, but also suggest the possibility of controlling the attrition at the study level.

Placebo effect was influenced by publication year in three-armed acupuncture trials.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the relationship between the placebo effect and the trial or patient characteristics. DATA SOURCES: We identified randomized clinical trials with acupuncture, sham and no-treatment groups in which no-treatment or conventional therapy was applied to the no-treatment group. Thirty-one trials in which no treatment was applied in the no-treatment group were categorised as 'strict' trials. Thirty-nine trials in which no-treatment or conventional therapy was applied to the no-treatment group were categorised as 'less strict' trials. We calculated the treatment effect, defined as the difference in the effect size between the acupuncture and no-treatment groups, and the placebo effect, defined as the difference in the effect size between the sham and no-treatment groups. Then, a random effect meta-regression analysis was performed on the two effects with respect to trial or patient characteristics. RESULTS: The treatment effect was not found to be associated with any factors in both the strict and less strict trials. However, the placebo effect was found to be associated with the publication year in both the strict and less strict trials (P=0.009 and 0.005, respectively). The placebo effect increased by 0.05 in effect size per year in trials that were published more recently. CONCLUSION: While the treatment effect was not influenced by any trial or patient characteristics, the placebo effect was associated with the publication year.

Three-armed trials including placebo and no-treatment groups may be subject to publication bias: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It has been argued that placebos may not have important clinical impacts in general. However, there is increasing evidence of a publication bias among trials published in journals. Therefore, we explored the potential for publication bias in randomized trials with active treatment, placebo, and no-treatment groups. METHODS: Three-armed randomized trials of acupuncture, acupoint stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical stimulation were obtained from electronic databases. Effect sizes between treatment and placebo groups were calculated for treatment effect, and effect sizes between placebo and no-treatment groups were calculated for placebo effect. All data were then analyzed for publication bias. RESULTS: For the treatment effect, small trials with fewer than 100 patients per arm showed more benefits than large trials with at least 100 patients per arm in acupuncture and acupoint stimulation. For the placebo effect, no differences were found between large and small trials. Further analyses showed that the treatment effect in acupuncture and acupoint stimulation may be subject to publication bias because study design and any known factors of heterogeneity were not associated with the small study effects. In the simulation, the magnitude of the placebo effect was smaller than that calculated after considering publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized three-armed trials, which are necessary for estimating the placebo effect, may be subject to publication bias. If the magnitude of the placebo effect is assessed in an intervention, the potential for publication bias should be investigated using data related to the treatment effect.