Progress in therapeutics and prevention occurs because experimental testing has been feasible due to willingness of humans to enroll in clinical trials, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Many advances in oncology have been made through the unprecedented efforts to conduct RCTs by Co-operative groups (COGs), established in 1955 by the NCI (National Cancer Institute). However, if patients are going to accept enrollment into experimental clinical trials, thereby contributing to future advances in the war against cancer, they (and the public) should believe that the RCT system is fair and intact. In particular, the public should be confident that the estimated effects of healthcare interventions in RCTs are reliable, correct, and trustworthy. The first step toward building the public confidence in clinical research is to assure that trials' methodologic quality (defined as the extent to which all aspects of a study's design and conduct protect against systematic bias and random error) is not compromised. Poorly conducted and reported research seriously compromises the integrity of the research process, especially if biased results receive false credibility. The focus of this application is to perform in-depth critical appraisal of the quality of RCTs conducted by the NCI COGs, which, surprisingly, has never been done. The main importance of the quality assessment is that correct interpretation of data related to health outcomes and the effects of a given health care intervention can be masked by the methodological quality. In other words, depending on the assessment of quality of research we may conclude that an effective intervention is ineffective or that a harmful intervention is beneficial. The short-term goal of this proposal is to assess the research integrity of the COG RCTs by evaluating their quality. The long-term goal is to ensure reliable, high-quality research. Assessing the quality of COG research will help correct any identified deficiencies and in turn help preserve and protect the research integrity of the system of COG clinical trials in which the public has invested so much. It is also hoped that public confidence in COG research may further increase, which in turn will enable development of more rapid advances in the war against cancer.

Agency
National Institute of Health (NIH)
Institute
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)
Type
Research Project (R01)
Project #
1R01NS052956-01
Application #
6965547
Study Section
Special Emphasis Panel (ZNS1-SRB-H (25))
Program Officer
Moy, Claudia S
Project Start
2005-09-01
Project End
2007-07-31
Budget Start
2005-09-01
Budget End
2006-07-31
Support Year
1
Fiscal Year
2005
Total Cost
$225,000
Indirect Cost
Name
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute
Department
Type
DUNS #
139301956
City
Tampa
State
FL
Country
United States
Zip Code
33612
Djulbegovic, Benjamin; Hozo, Iztok; Ioannidis, John P A (2014) Improving the drug development process: more not less randomized trials. JAMA 311:355-6
Miladinovic, Branko; Kumar, Ambuj; Mhaskar, Rahul et al. (2014) Benchmarks for detecting 'breakthroughs' in clinical trials: empirical assessment of the probability of large treatment effects using kernel density estimation. BMJ Open 4:e005249
Djulbegovic, Benjamin; Kumar, Ambuj; Glasziou, Paul et al. (2013) Medical research: Trial unpredictability yields predictable therapy gains. Nature 500:395-6
Mhaskar, Rahul; Djulbegovic, Benjamin; Magazin, Anja et al. (2012) Published methodological quality of randomized controlled trials does not reflect the actual quality assessed in protocols. J Clin Epidemiol 65:602-9
Djulbegovic, Benjamin; Kumar, Ambuj; Glasziou, Paul P et al. (2012) New treatments compared to established treatments in randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10:MR000024
Tsalatsanis, Athanasios; Barnes, Laura; Hozo, Iztok et al. (2011) A social network analysis of treatment discoveries in cancer. PLoS One 6:e18060
Djulbegovic, Benjamin; Kumar, Ambuj; Magazin, Anja et al. (2011) Optimism bias leads to inconclusive results-an empirical study. J Clin Epidemiol 64:583-93
Djulbegovic, Benjamin (2011) Uncertainty and equipoise: at interplay between epistemology, decision making and ethics. Am J Med Sci 342:282-9
Djulbegovic, Benjamin (2009) The paradox of equipoise: the principle that drives and limits therapeutic discoveries in clinical research. Cancer Control 16:342-7
Djulbegovic, Benjamin; Kumar, Ambuj; Soares, Heloisa P et al. (2008) Treatment success in cancer: new cancer treatment successes identified in phase 3 randomized controlled trials conducted by the National Cancer Institute-sponsored cooperative oncology groups, 1955 to 2006. Arch Intern Med 168:632-42

Showing the most recent 10 out of 12 publications