Incremental cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents compared with a third-generation bare-metal stent in a real-world setting: randomised Basel Stent Kosten Effektivitäts Trial (BASKET). Abstracts of randomized controlled trials presented at the society for pediatric research meeting: an example of publication bias. Balloon angioplasty versus bypass grafting in the era of coronary stenting. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? What should be included in meta-analyses? An exploration of methodological issues using the ISPOT meta-analyses. Two year follow-up after primary PCI with a paclitaxel-eluting stent versus a bare-metal stent for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (the PASSION trial): a follow-up study. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events?
No prospective trial-based data are available for incremental cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in unselected patients, as treated in everyday practice.
                The Basel stent cost-effectiveness trial (BASKET) included 826 consecutive patients treated with angioplasty and stenting for 1281 de-novo lesions, irrespective of indication for angioplasty. Patients were randomised to one of two DES (Cypher, n=264; Taxus, n=281) or to a cobalt-chromium-based BMS (Vision, n=281) and followed up for 6 months for occurrence of major adverse cardiac events and costs. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. The primary endpoint was cost-effectiveness after 6 months, with effectiveness defined as reduction of major adverse cardiac events.
                Cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularisation occurred in 39 of 544 (7.2%) patients with DES and 34 of 280 (12.1%) with BMS (odds ratio 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.91; p=0.02), without significant differences between the two DES. Total costs at 6 months were higher with DES (mean 10,544, SD 6849) than with BMS (9639, 9067; p<0.0001); higher stent costs of DES were not compensated for by lower follow-up costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of DES compared with BMS to avoid one major event was 18,311, and costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained were more than 50 000. Subgroup analyses showed that DES were more cost-effective for elderly patients in specific high-risk groups.
                In a real-world setting, use of DES in all patients is less cost effective than in studies with selected patients. Use of these stents could be restricted to patients in high-risk groups. Publication bias toward studies that favor new therapies has been known to occur for the past 40 years, yet its implications are not well studied in child health. The increased interest in meta-analyses has highlighted the need to identify the totality of evidence when addressing treatment questions.
                To measure the percentage of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) presented at a major pediatric scientific meeting that were subsequently published as full-length articles, to investigate factors associated with publication, and to describe the variables that change from abstract to manuscript form.
                The scientific proceedings from the Society for Pediatric Research were hand searched for RCTs (1992-1995). Subsequent publication was ascertained through a search of various electronic databases. Quality of abstracts and manuscripts was measured, and data were extracted using a structured form.
                A total of 264 (59.1%) of 447 abstracts were subsequently published. Almost 64% of RCTs that were subsequently published favored new therapy compared with 43.5% of studies that were never published (P<.001). Mean effect size for published vs unpublished RCTs was 0.74 vs 0.05 (P<.001). Median sample size was larger in published (n = 45) vs unpublished (n = 34) RCTs (P =.02). Quality was significantly lower for abstracts vs published RCTs (P<.001). For 5% of abstracts that were subsequently published, the conclusion regarding treatment efficacy changed.
                Publication bias is a serious threat to assessing the effectiveness of interventions in child health, as little more than half of RCTs presented at a major scientific meeting are subsequently published. There is a need to institute an international registry of RCTs in children so that the totality of evidence can be accessed when assessing treatment effectiveness. Patients with multivessel coronary artery disease are candidates for either angioplasty and stenting or coronary artery bypass grafting. A prospective randomized study designed to compare the both methods included only a minority of the eligible patients.
                To compare coronary artery bypass grafting to angioplasty plus stenting in patients with multivessel disease who declined randomization to a multicenter study (the ARTS).
                During 1997-98 we prospectively followed 96 consecutive patients who were eligible according to the ARTS criteria but refused randomization. Of these patients, 50 underwent angioplasty + stenting and 46 underwent coronary bypass surgery. We compared the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebral events, chest pain recurrence, quality of life and procedural cost during the first 6 months.
                All procedures were completed successfully without mortality or cerebral events. The rate of Q-wave myocardial infarction was 2% in the AS group vs. 0% in the CABG group (not significant). Minor complications occurred in 7 patients (14%) in the AS group and in 21 patients (45%) in the CABG group (P < 0.01). At 6 months follow-up the incidence of major cardiac and cerebral events was similar in both groups (11% and 4% in the AS and CABG groups respectively, P = NS). Seventeen patients (36%) in the AS group required repeat revascularization compared to only 3 (7%) in the CABG group (P = 0.002). Nevertheless, quality of life was better, hospitalization was shorter and the cost was lower during the first 6 months after angioplasty.
                Angioplasty with stenting compared to coronary bypass surgery in patients with multivessel disease resulted in similar short-term major complications. However, 36% of patients undergoing angioplasty may need further revascularization procedures during the first 6 months. The inclusion of only a subset of all available evidence in a meta-analysis may introduce biases and threaten its validity; this is particularly likely if the subset of included studies differ from those not included, which may be the case for published and grey literature (unpublished studies, with limited distribution). We set out to examine whether exclusion of grey literature, compared with its inclusion in meta-analysis, provides different estimates of the effectiveness of interventions assessed in randomised trials.
                From a random sample of 135 meta-analyses, we identified and retrieved 33 publications that included both grey and published primary studies. The 33 publications contributed 41 separate meta-analyses from several disease areas. General characteristics of the meta-analyses and associated studies and outcome data at the trial level were collected. We explored the effects of the inclusion of grey literature on the quantitative results using logistic-regression analyses.
                33% of the meta-analyses were found to include some form of grey literature. The grey literature, when included, accounts for between 4.5% and 75% of the studies in a meta-analysis. On average, published work, compared with grey literature, yielded significantly larger estimates of the intervention effect by 15% (ratio of odds ratios=1.15 [95% CI 1.04-1.28]). Excluding abstracts from the analysis further compounded the exaggeration (1.33 [1.10-1.60]).
                The exclusion of grey literature from meta-analyses can lead to exaggerated estimates of intervention effectiveness. In general, meta-analysts should attempt to identify, retrieve, and include all reports, grey and published, that meet predefined inclusion criteria. It has been suggested that the quality of clinical trials should be assessed by blinded raters to limit the risk of introducing bias into meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and into the peer-review process. There is very little evidence in the literature to substantiate this. This study describes the development of an instrument to assess the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in pain research and its use to determine the effect of rater blinding on the assessments of quality. A multidisciplinary panel of six judges produced an initial version of the instrument. Fourteen raters from three different backgrounds assessed the quality of 36 research reports in pain research, selected from three different samples. Seven were allocated randomly to perform the assessments under blind conditions. The final version of the instrument included three items. These items were scored consistently by all the raters regardless of background and could discriminate between reports from the different samples. Blind assessments produced significantly lower and more consistent scores than open assessments. The implications of this finding for systematic reviews, meta-analytic research and the peer-review process are discussed. To explore the impact of methodologic issues on the results of meta-analyses. The following issues were examined: the type of literature search strategy used; inclusion or exclusion of non-peer-reviewed studies; the inclusion or exclusion of non-English language publications; the effect of trial quality; and the inclusion or exclusion of non-placebo-controlled studies.
                The International Study of Perioperative Transfusion (ISPOT) meta-analyses were used to evaluate each of the methodologic issues. The 10 meta-analyses consisted of technologies to reduce the need for perioperative red blood cell transfusion. The number of trials for each of the meta-analyses varied from 2 to 45. Both EMBASE and MEDLINE searches were conducted, including the use of systematic search strategies.
                MEDLINE identified the vast majority of trials. Alone, MEDLINE would have missed 8 studies compared to 10 for EMBASE. Use of the systematic search strategies greatly reduced the number of articles to be reviewed compared to open searches. Type of publication, country of study origin, inclusion of non-English publications, and trial quality had very little impact on the estimates of effect. The use of placebo versus open-label control affected the magnitude of the odds ratio for two of the meta-analyses. The results of the two meta-analyses were not statistically significant if only placebo-controlled trials were included.
                While methodologic issues had very little impact on the ISPOT meta-analyses, further studies are needed in a variety of other clinical settings. Because MEDLINE, coupled with a review of the references in the identified trials, identified the vast majority of trials, one needs to consider the costs and benefits of searching EMBASE and the pursuance of unpublished and unindexed trials. This follow-up study was performed to assess the long-term effects of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients who had undergone a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).
                The PASSION trial randomly assigned 619 patients with STEMI to receive either a PES or BMS. The composite endpoint for the follow-up study was the occurrence of the combination of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularisation (TLR) or stent thrombosis at two years. A trend towards a lower rate of the composite endpoint was observed in the PES compared to the BMS group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70; 95% C.I. 0.45-1.09). This was driven by a reduced TLR in favour of PES (HR 0.60; 95% C.I. 0.34-1.09). Angiographically proven stent thrombosis at two years did not differ significantly between groups (2.1% in the PES group versus 1.4%; HR 1.48; 95% C.I. 0.42-5.23).
                PES implantation for STEMI did not significantly improve clinical outcome at two years after the index event, although there was a trend towards a lower rate of target-lesion revascularisation. The rate of stent thrombosis did not differ significantly between groups. Previous studies indicate that industry-sponsored trials tend to draw proindustry conclusions.
                To explore whether the association between funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials reflects treatment effects or adverse events.
                Observational study of 370 randomized drug trials included in meta-analyses from Cochrane reviews selected from the Cochrane Library, May 2001. From a random sample of 167 Cochrane reviews, 25 contained eligible meta-analyses (assessed a binary outcome; pooled at least 5 full-paper trials of which at least 1 reported adequate and 1 reported inadequate allocation concealment). The primary binary outcome from each meta-analysis was considered the primary outcome for all trials included in each meta-analysis. The association between funding and conclusions was analyzed by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment effect, adverse events, and additional confounding factors (methodological quality, control intervention, sample size, publication year, and place of publication).
                Conclusions in trials, classified into whether the experimental drug was recommended as the treatment of choice or not.
                The experimental drug was recommended as treatment of choice in 16% of trials funded by nonprofit organizations, 30% of trials not reporting funding, 35% of trials funded by both nonprofit and for-profit organizations, and 51% of trials funded by for-profit organizations (P<.001; chi2 test). Logistic regression analyses indicated that funding, treatment effect, and double blinding were the only significant predictors of conclusions. Adjusted analyses showed that trials funded by for-profit organizations were significantly more likely to recommend the experimental drug as treatment of choice (odds ratio, 5.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-14.4) compared with trials funded by nonprofit organizations. This association did not appear to reflect treatment effect or adverse events.
                Conclusions in trials funded by for-profit organizations may be more positive due to biased interpretation of trial results. Readers should carefully evaluate whether conclusions in randomized trials are supported by data.
CABG is associated with reduced rates of major adverse cardiac events, mostly driven by reduced repeat revascularisation. However, the RCT data are limited by follow-up, unrepresentative samples and rapid development of both surgical techniques and stenting. Research on real-world patient population or patient level data meta-analyses may identify risk factors and groupings who may benefit most from one strategy over the other.