The agonising negative trend in monitoring of clinical trials
Abstract
Randomised clinical trials are undertaken in the hope of showing positive benefits of a new treatment, but on occasion quite the opposite trend can occur, If the interim data suggest possible negative (harmful) effects of a new treatment. The handling of such emerging negative trends is among the most complicated and ethically challenging scenarios in monitoring clinical trials through repeated interim analyses. Statistical methods are helpful to detect the point of no likely beneficial effect, and the point that separates neutral results from harmful results. However, in practice the decision whether (and exactly when) to stop such a trial involves a complex of other issues that depends on the context of the disease, the treatment being assessed, and the current practice of medicine. Owing to this complexity, an Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) is best suited to deal with such a situation. Prediction of whether a negative trend will emerge in any trial is not possible. Negative trends were not anticipated in the cardiovascular trials and the trials of lung-cancer prevention described here. In the light of these experiences, all trials and their DSMBs should consider ahead of time the possibility of unexpectedly harmful results, and should document appropriately the statistical guidelines and the decision-making process required to cope with such undesirable events.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Criteria for stopping for harm are often different from those for benefit and may or may not employ a formal statistical criterion.
“Criteria for stopping for harm are often different from those for benefit and may or may not employ a formal statistical criterion.458”
From SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials (2025) · cites this paper as [458]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 126
- Authors
- DeMets, D. L., Pocock, S. J., & Julian, D. G.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
- Newcastle University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- DeMets, David L
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1999-12
- Volume
- 354
- Issue
- 9194
- Pages
- 1983-1988
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2128376476
- Cited by
- 126
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 1.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Lancet (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
- Keywords
- interim analysis, data safety monitoring board, cardiovascular clinical trials
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Protocols, Decision Making, Ethics, Medical, Forecasting, Heart Diseases, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Safety, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Guidelines as Topic, Risk Assessment, Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committees, Advisory Committees
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review