Cited by 76Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsEthics in Clinical ResearchPharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Systematic qualitative review of the literature on data monitoring committees for randomized controlled trials

Sydes, Matthew R, Spiegelhalter, David J, Altman, Douglas G, Babiker, Abdel B, Parmar, Mahesh KB, DAMOCLES Group·2004·Clinical Trials

Abstract

Aims To systematically review the published literature on data monitoring committees (DMCs) for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and summarize information and opinions on best practice. This was part of the DAMOCLES project. Methods A systematic and comprehensive search of five online bibliographic databases was performed, identifying 4007 potentially relevant articles. These were assessed in two stages by the authors. The 84 most relevant articles were agreed and were supplemented with extracts from 16 books: ultimately, 100 sources were reviewed. A series of 23 questions plus subquestions were developed to structure the data extraction and interpretation process. Results Much has been written about DMCs but by a rather small community of authors. The papers included some results of surveys, but were mainly opinion pieces based on the authors' beliefs, practices and experiences. There is a lack of empirical evidence for many aspects of DMCs. There was a great range of detail in the literature relating to the prespecified questions. It was generally agreed that interim monitoring of accumulating data was necessary in some form for most trials. Questions such as membership of the DMC featured widely in the literature with opinions and practice ranging from 3–20 members, of whom between none and all should be independent. There was a consensus that formal statistical methods should be used as tools to guide decision making rather than as hard rules. Conversely, topics such as the training and experience required for DMC membership were discussed in very few papers. Conclusions There is a consensus in the published literature in a number of areas, although there are many different models for structure and functions of a DMC. While uncertainty remains about some issues, it is strongly recommended that an explicit set of guidelines (Charter) is prepared for each DMC prior to the start of the trial specifying clearly how it will operate.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1191/1740774504cn004rr

Cites

107 of 107 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 111 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sydes, M. R., Spiegelhalter, D. J., Altman, D. G., Babiker, A. B., Parmar, M. K., & DAMOCLES Group
Affiliations
  • MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL (GB)
  • MRC Biostatistics Unit (GB)
  • Cancer Research UK (GB)
Venue
Clinical Trials
Published
2004-02
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
60-79
ISSN
  • 1740-7745 (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-7753
OpenAlex
W2026423245
Cited by
76
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Trials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute
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 › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Keywords
data monitoring committees, randomized controlled trials, interim analysis, best practice guidelines
MeSH terms
Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Clinical Trials Data Monitoring 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