Cited by 24Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Statistical controversies in clinical research: Value of adverse events relatedness to study treatment: analyses of data from randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials

Open access
Le-Rademacher, J., Hillman, S.L., Meyers, J., Loprinzi, C.L., Limburg, P.J., Mandrekar, S.J.·2017·Annals of Oncology

Abstract

Background Collection and reporting of adverse events (AEs) and their relatedness to study treatment, known commonly as attribution, in clinical trials is mandated by regulatory agencies (the National Cancer Institute and the Food and Drug Administration). Attribution is assigned by the treating physician using judgment based on various factors including patient's baseline status, disease history, and comorbidity as well as knowledge about the safety profile of the study treatments. We evaluate the patterns of AE attribution (unrelated, unlikely, possibly, probably, and definitely related to the treatment) in treatment, symptom intervention (cancer patients) and cancer prevention (participants at high risk for cancer) setting.Materials and methods Nine multicenter placebo-controlled trials (two treatment, two symptom intervention, and five cancer prevention) were analysed separately (2155 patients). Frequency and severity of AEs were summarized by arm. Attribution and percentage of repeated AEs whose attribution changed overtime were summarized for the placebo arms. Percentage of physician over- or under-reporting of AE relatedness was calculated for the treatment arms using the placebo arm as the reference.Results Across all trials and settings, a very high proportion of AEs reported as related to treatment were classified as possibly related, a significant proportion of AEs in the placebo arm were incorrectly reported as related to treatment, and clinician-reported attribution over-estimated the rate of AEs related to treatment. Fatigue, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and neurosensory were the common AEs that were over reported by clinician as related to treatment.Conclusions These analyses demonstrate that assigning causality to AE is a complex and difficult process that produces unreliable and subjective data. In randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials where data are available to objectively assess relatedness of AE to treatment, attribution assignment should be eliminated.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/annonc/mdx043

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Johnson E, Marks R, Mandrekar S et al. Phase III randomized, double blind study of maintenance CAI or placebo in patients with advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). Lung Cancer 2008; 60: 200-207.
  2. Therneau TM, Grambsch PM. Modelling Survival Data: Extending the Cox Model. Springer Science & Business Media 2000.
  3. Bent S, Padula A, Avins AL. Brief communications: better ways to ques- tion patients about adverse medical events. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144: 257-261.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Le-Rademacher, J., Hillman, S. L., Meyers, J., Loprinzi, C. L., Limburg, P. J., & Mandrekar, S. J.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Mandrekar, S.J.
Venue
Annals of Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-06
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
1183-1190
ISSN
0923-7534 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2587245385
Cited by
24
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
cancer prevention trials, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, adverse event reporting
MeSH terms
Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Neoplasms, Placebos, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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