Cited by 126Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsEthics in Clinical ResearchPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions

The agonising negative trend in monitoring of clinical trials

DeMets, David L, Pocock, Stuart J, Julian, Desmond G·1999·The Lancet

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

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)03464-9

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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