Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorRidgeon, Elliott E-
dc.contributor.authorBellomo, Rinaldo-
dc.contributor.authorAberegg, Scott K-
dc.contributor.authorSweeney, Rob Mac-
dc.contributor.authorVarughese, Rachel S-
dc.contributor.authorLandoni, Giovanni-
dc.contributor.authorYoung, Paul J-
dc.identifier.citationCritical Care 2017; 21(1): 132-
dc.description.abstractAn important limitation of many critical care trial designs is that they hypothesize large, and potentially implausible, reductions in mortality. Interpretation of trial results could be improved by systematic assessment of the plausibility of trial hypotheses; however, such assessment has not been attempted in the field of critical care medicine. The purpose of this study was to determine clinicians' views about prior probabilities and plausible effect sizes for ongoing critical care trials where the primary endpoint is landmark mortality. We conducted a systematic review of clinical trial registries in September 2015 to identify ongoing critical care medicine trials where landmark mortality was the primary outcome, followed by a clinician survey to obtain opinions about ten large trials. Clinicians were asked to estimate the probability that each trial would demonstrate a mortality effect equal to or larger than that used in its sample size calculations. Estimates provided by individual clinicians varied from 0% to 100% for most trials, with a median estimate of 15% (IQR 10-20%). The median largest absolute mortality reduction considered plausible was 4.5% (IQR 3.5-5%), compared with a median absolute mortality reduction used in sample size calculations of 5% (IQR 3.6-10%) (Pā€‰=ā€‰0.27). For some of the largest ongoing critical care trials, many clinicians regard prior probabilities as low and consider that plausible effects on absolute mortality are less than 5%. Further work is needed to determine whether pooled estimates obtained by surveying clinicians are replicable and accurate or whether other methods of estimating prior probability are preferred.-
dc.subjectClinical trial design-
dc.subjectCritical care-
dc.subjectIntensive care-
dc.subjectIntensive care unit-
dc.subjectRandomized clinical trial-
dc.titleEffect sizes in ongoing randomized controlled critical care trials.-
dc.typeJournal Article-
dc.identifier.journaltitleCritical Care-
dc.identifier.affiliationMedical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealanden
dc.identifier.affiliationVita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italyen
dc.identifier.affiliationAustralian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationIntensive Care Unit, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italyen
dc.identifier.affiliationDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA-
dc.identifier.affiliationIntensive Care Unit, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, UK-
dc.identifier.affiliationIntensive Care Unit, Wellington Regional Hospital, Wellington, New Zealand-
dc.type.austinJournal Article-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairetypeJournal Article- Care- Analytics Research and Evaluation (DARE) Centre-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

checked on Feb 5, 2023

Google ScholarTM


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.