Cited by 550Gastrointestinal motility and disordersStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsEthics in Clinical Research

Design of Treatment Trials for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders

Irvine, E. Jan, Tack, Jan, Crowell, Michael D., Gwee, Kok Ann, Ke, Meiyun, Schmulson, Max J., Whitehead, William E., Spiegel, Brennan·2016·Gastroenterology

Abstract

This article summarizes recent progress and regulatory guidance on design of trials to assess the efficacy of new therapies for functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs). The double-masked, placebo-controlled, parallel-group design remains the accepted standard for evaluating treatment efficacy. A control group is essential, and a detailed description of the randomization process and concealed allocation method must be included in the study report. The control will most often be placebo, but for therapeutic procedures and for behavioral treatment trials, respectively, a sham procedure and control intervention with similar expectation of benefit, but lacking the treatment principle, are recommended. Investigators should be aware of, and attempt to minimize, expectancy effects (placebo, nocebo, precebo). The primary analysis should be based on the proportion of patients in each treatment arm who satisfy a treatment responder definition or a prespecified clinically meaningful change in a patient-reported outcome measure. Data analysis should use the intention-to-treat principle. Reporting of results should follow the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials guidelines and include secondary outcome measures to support or explain the primary outcome and an analysis of harms data. Trials should be registered in a public location before initiation and results should be published regardless of outcome.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.02.010

Cites

148 of 148 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 151 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Irvine, E. J., Tack, J., Crowell, M. D., Gwee, K. A., Ke, M., Schmulson, M. J., Whitehead, W. E., & Spiegel, B.
Affiliations
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
  • Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven (BE)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN)
  • Hospital General de México (MX)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Tack, Jan
Venue
Gastroenterology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-05
Volume
150
Issue
6
Pages
1469-1480.e1
ISSN
0016-5085 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2065994042
Cited by
550
References
151
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 17
FWCI
5.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Gastroenterology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
Keywords
functional gastrointestinal disorders, clinical trial design, sham procedure, expectancy effects, nocebo, patient-reported outcome measures, intention-to-treat analysis, CONSORT guidelines, clinical trial registration, regulatory guidelines
MeSH terms
Gastrointestinal Diseases, Research Design

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