Paper Details

  1. Home
  2. Paper Details

Quality, evolution, and clinical implications of randomized, controlled trials on the treatment of lung cancer. A lost opportunity for meta-analysis.

Author: AlexanianA A, ApoloneG, GrilliR, LiberatiA, NicolucciA, TorriV

Clinical TrialA clinical trial is a planned study conducted on humans to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and treatment methods. It aims to explore the possibilities of new treatments and improve the health of patients.
Journal ArticleAn article published in an academic or professional journal that reports original research or scholarly analysis.
Randomized Controlled TrialA clinical trial that randomly assigns participants to treatment and control groups to evaluate the effects of an intervention.
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tResearch funding provided by government agencies outside the United States.

Overview

A review of 150 randomized trials on lung cancer treatment identified serious methodological flaws. These included inadequate handling of patient dropouts, insufficient sample size calculations, inadequate blinding of treatment assignments, and incomplete reporting of eligible patients not included in the trials. While the quality of the trials improved over time, the progress was inconsistent. For non-small-cell lung cancer, despite the lack of proven effective treatments, untreated control groups were often not used, and many different treatment regimens were tested, even in higher-quality studies. Research on small-cell lung cancer showed some more reliable, though limited, progress. The study concludes that while clinical research in lung cancer has not defined the best standard care, the wide variety of treatments tested makes it unlikely that a meaningful overall analysis of existing trials is possible.
Paper Details　
Original Abstract of the Article :
A review of 150 published randomized trials on the treatment of lung cancer showed serious methodological drawbacks. Handling of withdrawals (only 7 trials had no dropouts), a priori estimates of sample size (only 9 trials specified the required number of patients), blinding of randomization (only 2...See full text at original site
Dr.Camel IconDr.Camel's Paper Summary Blogラクダ博士について

ラクダ博士は、Health Journal が論文の内容を分かりやすく解説するために作成した架空のキャラクターです。
難解な医学論文を、専門知識のない方にも理解しやすいように、噛み砕いて説明することを目指しています。

* ラクダ博士による解説は、あくまで論文の要点をまとめたものであり、原論文の完全な代替となるものではありません。詳細な内容については、必ず原論文をご参照ください。
* ラクダ博士は架空のキャラクターであり、実際の医学研究者や医療従事者とは一切関係がありません。
* 解説の内容は Health Journal が独自に解釈・作成したものであり、原論文の著者または出版社の見解を反映するものではありません。


引用元：
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2677423

データ提供：米国国立医学図書館（NLM）

The Quest for Better Lung Cancer Treatments: A Critical Review

Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. This study, published in the journal [Journal Name], provides a critical review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of lung cancer.

The study identifies significant methodological drawbacks in published lung cancer RCTs, including issues related to handling withdrawals, a priori estimates of sample size, blinding of randomization, and reporting of eligible non-randomized patients. The study also notes that, despite the lack of clear evidence for the efficacy of any active treatment for non-small cell lung cancer, an untreated control arm was prematurely abandoned. The study concludes that the heterogeneity of lung cancer research makes it unlikely that quantitative meta-analysis of existing trials will be constructive.

The Search for Effective Lung Cancer Therapies

This study highlights the challenges associated with conducting high-quality research in lung cancer. It emphasizes the need for improved methodological rigor in RCTs to ensure that the results are reliable and informative. The study also underscores the importance of continued research efforts to identify effective treatments for this devastating disease.

A Path Forward for Lung Cancer Research

This study serves as a reminder of the importance of careful planning and execution of clinical trials. It highlights the need for a collaborative approach to lung cancer research, with a focus on improving trial design, execution, and reporting. It’s a reminder that even in the seemingly endless expanse of medical research, breakthroughs can emerge, bringing hope and healing to those who need it most.

Dr.Camel's Conclusion

This critical review of lung cancer RCTs highlights the need for improved methodological rigor in clinical research to ensure reliable and informative results. It underscores the importance of continued research efforts to identify effective treatments for this devastating disease. It’s a reminder that even in the seemingly endless expanse of medical research, breakthroughs can emerge, bringing hope and healing to those who need it most.

Date :
  1. Date Completed 1989-11-01
  2. Date Revised 2016-10-17
Further Info :

Pubmed ID

2677423

DOI: Digital Object Identifier

2677423

Related Literature

Article Analysis
・Effective treatment of lung cancer
SNS
PICO Info
in preparation
Languages

English

Positive IndicatorAn AI analysis index that serves as a benchmark for how positive the results of the study are. Note that it is a benchmark and requires careful interpretation and consideration of different perspectives.

This site uses cookies. Visit our privacy policy page or click the link in any footer for more information and to change your preferences.