Objective To compare the balance of simple randomization, stratified blocked randomization and minimization. Methods Monte Carlo technique was employed to simulate the treatment allocation of simple randomization, stratified blocked randomization and minimization respectively, then the balance of treatment allocation in each group and the balance for every prognostic factor were compared. Results The simulation demonstrated that minimization provides the best performance to ensure balance in the number of patients between groups and prognostic factors. Balance in prognostic factors achieved with stratified blocked randomization was similar to that achieved with simple randomization. Conclusion Minimization offers the best balance in the number of patients and prognostic factors between groups.
Approximately 70 million people worldwide suffer from epilepsy, with about 9 million in China. About one-third of patients demonstrating resistance to traditional antiseizure medications (ASMs), Focal Cortical Stimulation (FCS) emerges as a novel neuromodulation therapy based on neural stimulation, showing potential in treating drug-resistant focal epilepsy. FCS reduces seizure frequency by diminishing abnormal excitability in cortical areas. Compared to traditional surgery, it carries lower risks and is particularly suited for patients whose epileptogenic foci are difficult to surgically localize. Its adjustability provides physicians with treatment flexibility, allowing them to tailor therapy based on patient conditions. Recent studies highlight the practical clinical application of FCS, underscoring its advantages in reducing the frequency of drug-resistant epilepsy seizures. The article concludes by exploring the future prospects of FCS, emphasizing the need for research in long-term efficacy assessment and patient adaptability, thus demonstrating its significant potential and direction for development in the field of epilepsy treatment.
To solve the problems such as the incomplete and non-standard reporting outcomes in clinical trials, international methodologists have simultaneously launched guidelines for reporting outcomes in trial protocols and reports in 2022 on the basis of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement 2010. The SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension recommend outcome-specific reporting items should be included prospectively in trial protocols and reports, regardless of trial design or population. This paper introduces and interprets the two guidelines for reporting outcomes, and discusses their significance and enlightenment to the research in the field of traditional Chinese medicine. For example, using the outcome reporting guidelines will help clinical researchers comprehensively consider issues related to outcomes when reporting protocols or results, which may improve the quality of research design and reporting. For core outcome set, the five core elements of outcomes may help researchers extracting and analyzing outcomes, which will standardize research; the explanation of medical terminology in the outcome reporting guidelines will contribute to the improvement of methodology in the field of traditional Chinese medicine.
This article briefly introduces the management of clinical trials of investigational new drugs, hospital-made preparations, post-marketing drugs and other types of clinical trials. The WHO International Clinical Trial Register Platform (WHO ICTRP), Chinese Clinical Trial Register (ChiCTR) and Chinese Clinical Trial Registration and Publishing Collaboration (ChiCTRPC) are also described. People conducting trials are advised to apply the basic philosophy of evidence-based medicine in their implementation, which is considered to be one of the guarantees of the validity of clinical trials.
Objective To introduce the use of Central Randomization System in clinical trials. Methods We discussed the application of Central Randomization System in clinical trials from object management, drug management and user management, and made a brief description of minimization method. Results Central Randomization Systems can guarantee the nnplementation of the scheme of randomization, and can be used in clinical trials with minimization. Conclusion Central Randomization Systems are feasible in clinical trials especially in traditional Chinese medicine and open clinical trials.
ObjectivesTo analyze the metrological characteristics of hypertension-related clinical trials registered on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR), and discuss the characteristics and developmental trends of hypertension clinical trials registration in China.MethodsChiCTR were searched to collect hypertension-related clinical trials from inception to March 25th, 2018. The characteristics of registered trials were analyzed.ResultsA total of 135 registered trials were included, in which the trials from Beijing, Guangdong, Jiangsu, Chongqing and Shanghai accounted for 55.5%. 115 trials were pre-registered. The top three funding sources were from finance (32, 23.7%), self-financing (25, 18.5%) and hospital (20, 14.8%), respectively. Of all 79 randomized controlled trials, 55 were blank/missing in the entry of blinding method.ConclusionsThe number of hypertension-related clinical trials in ChiCTR tends to increase, however there are large regional disparities and incomplete, non-standardiazed information in the registration of clinical trials. The relevant departments should increase the publicity on the registration of clinical trials, raise the awareness of registration, and promote the development and registration of high quality clinical trials.
Controversy exists regarding the ethics of using placebo control groups in clinical trials when effective treatments exist. The debate was fueled by the announcement of the 5th revision of the Declaration of Helsinki (2000). This study reviews the history and scientific background surrounding the controversy and investigates the prevailing attitudes of Hong Kong researchers regarding this issue. The controversy has centered on a few issues. The first involves the methodological superiority of placebo-controlled trials in discerning treatment effects. Secondly, it is unclear if the treatment effects encompass absolute treatment effects (including placebo effects) or are confined to treatment-specific effects (excluding placebo effects). Thirdly, there are worries that subjects in the placebo group could be exposed to higher risk for developing serious adverse events. Fourthly, it is debated whether the standard of best available treatment should be a local one, or an international one. Preliminary research findings suggest that the opinions of the Hong Kong researchers seemed to be divided on the use of placebo control groups in clinical trials when effective treatment exists. Further researcher on the topic is therefore warranted, training and consensus meeting may be necessary to minimize the confusion related to this issue.
In order to standardize the reporting of sham acupuncture and improve the quality of reporting of sham acupuncture, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine has developed a specific reporting guideline for sham acupuncture: SHam Acupuncture REporting (SHARE) which contains ten categories with nineteen items. This paper introduces the development methods and main contents of the guidelines to provide a reference for researchers to correctly understand and reasonably apply the guidelines.
The complete, transparent, and standardized reporting of the outcome of a clinical trial is a key factor in ensuring the practicality, reproducibility, and transparency of the trial, and reducing bias in selective reporting. The consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement provides normative guidelines for reporting clinical trials. In December 2022, JAMA released the guidelines for reporting outcomes in trial reports (CONSORT-Outcomes) 2022 extension, aiming to explain the entries related to trial outcomes, sample size, statistical methods, and auxiliary analysis in the CONSORT 2010 statement, to further improve the standards for outcome reporting in clinical trial reports. This article combines research examples to interpret the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension, in order to provide normative references for domestic scholars to report clinical research results.