Quality, evolution, and clinical implications of randomized, controlled trials on the treatment of lung cancer. A lost opportunity for meta-analysis
- 20 October 1989
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in JAMA
- Vol. 262 (15), 2101-2107
- https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.262.15.2101
Abstract
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 22 trials had a satisfactory procedure), and information on eligible nonrandomized patients (only 13 studies reported it precisely) were areas of major concern. Although trial quality improved over time both in design/execution (study size estimation and analysis by prognostic factors became more frequent) and reporting (information of patients'' characteristics and side effects were more thoroughly reported), their evolution was inconsistent. For non-small-cell lung cancer-despite the persistent lack of proof of efficacy of any active treatment-an untreated control arm was prematurely abandoned and a wide variety of tested regimens prevailed even in better-quality studies. Slightly more promising is the picture for small-cell lung cancer, where research indicates somewhat more relicable-though limited-progress. While clinical research in lung cancer has contributed little to defining the best standard care, we conclude that its heterogeneity makes it unlikely that quantitative meta-analysis of existing trials will be constructive.This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit:
- The poor quality of early evaluations of magnetic resonance imagingJAMA, 1988
- Guidelines for Statistical Reporting in Articles for Medical JournalsAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1988
- Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled TrialsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1987
- Studies of breast-feeding and infections. How good is the evidence?JAMA, 1986
- A quality assessment of randomized control trials of primary treatment of breast cancer.Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1986
- An evaluation of method reporting and use in clinical trials in dermatologyArchives of Dermatology, 1985