Godolphin, Peter John; Bath, Philip M; Montgomery, Alan A; (2022) Should we adjudicate outcomes in stroke trials? A systematic review. International Journal of Stroke 10.1177/17474930221094682. (In press).

Preview

Text Godolphin_Should we adjudicate outcomes in stroke trials_AOP.pdf Download (224kB) | Preview

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Central adjudication of outcomes is common in randomized clinical trials in stroke. The rationale for adjudication is clear; centrally adjudicated outcomes should have less random and systematic errors than outcomes assessed locally by site investigators. However, adjudication brings added complexities to a clinical trial and can be costly. AIM: To assess the evidence for outcome adjudication in stroke trials. SUMMARY OF REVIEW: We identified 12 studies evaluating central adjudication in stroke trials. The majority of these were secondary analyses of trials, and the results of all of these would have remained unchanged had central adjudication not taken place, even for trials without sufficient blinding. The largest differences between site-assessed and adjudicator-assessed outcomes were between the most subjective outcomes, such as causality of serious adverse events. We found that the cost of adjudication could be upward of £100,000 for medium to large prevention trials. These findings suggest that the cost of central adjudication may outweigh the advantages it brings in many cases. However, through simulation, we found that only a small amount of bias is required in site investigators’ outcome assessments before adjudication becomes important. CONCLUSION: Central adjudication may not be necessary in stroke trials with blinded outcome assessment. However, for open-label studies, central adjudication may be more important.

Download activity - last month

Export as CSVXMLJSON

Download activity - last 12 months

Export as JSONCSVXML

Downloads by country - last 12 months

Export as XMLCSVJSON

Archive Staff Only

View Item