MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2176156606 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133907

Which and How Many Patients Should Be Included in Randomised Controlled Trials to Demonstrate the Efficacy of Biologics in Primary Sjögren’s Syndrome?

2015· review· en· W2176156606 on OpenAlexaff
Valérie Devauchelle‐Pensec, Jacques‐Eric Gottenberg, Sandrine Jousse‐Joulin, Jean‐Marie Berthelot, Aleth Perdriger, É. Hachulla, P.Y. Hatron, Xavier Puéchal, Véronique Le Guern, Jean Sibilia, Laurent Chiche, Vincent Goëb, Olivier Vittecoq, C. Larroche, A.L. Fauchais, Gilles Hayem, Jacques Morel, Charles Zarnitsky, Jean‐Jacques Dubost, Philippe Dieudé, Jacques‐Olivier Pers, Divi Cornec, Raphaèle Séror, Xavier Mariette, Emmanuel Nowak, Alain Saraux

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSalivary Gland Disorders and Functions
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical endpointVisual analogue scalePlaceboInternal medicineCohortPopulationSample size determinationRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine how the choice of the primary endpoint influenced sample size estimates in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments for primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS). METHODS: We reviewed all studies evaluating biotechnological therapies in pSS to identify their inclusion criteria and primary endpoints. Then, in a large cohort (ASSESS), we determined the proportion of patients who would be included in RCTs using various inclusion criteria sets. Finally, we used the population of a large randomised therapeutic trial in pSS (TEARS) to assess the impact of various primary objectives and endpoints on estimated sample sizes. These analyses were performed only for the endpoints indicating greater efficacy of rituximab compared to the placebo. RESULTS: We identified 18 studies. The most common inclusion criteria were short disease duration; systemic involvement; high mean visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for dryness, pain, and fatigue; and biological evidence of activity. In the ASSESS cohort, 35 percent of patients had recent-onset disease (lower than 4 years), 68 percent systemic manifestations, 68 percent high scores on two of three VASs, and 52 percent biological evidence of activity. The primary endpoints associated with the smallest sample sizes (nlower than 200) were a VAS dryness score improvement higher to 20 mm by week 24 or variable improvements (10, 20, or 30 mm) in fatigue VAS by week 6 or 16. For patients with systemic manifestations, the ESSDAI change may be the most logical endpoint, as it reflects all domains of disease activity. However, the ESSDAI did not improve significantly with rituximab therapy in the TEARS study. Ultrasound score improvement produced the smallest sample size estimate in the TEARS study. CONCLUSION: This study provides valuable information for designing future RCTs on the basis of previously published studies. Previous RCTs used inclusion criteria that selected a small part of the entire pSS population. The endpoint was usually based on VASs assessing patient complaints. In contrast to VAS dryness cut-offs, VAS fatigue cut-offs did not affect estimated sample sizes. SGUS improvement produced the smallest estimated sample size. Further studies are required to validate standardised SGUS modalities and assessment criteria. Thus, researchers should strive to develop a composite primary endpoint and to determine its best cut-off and assessment time point.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.204
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.136 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicSalivary Gland Disorders and FunctionsFrench-language works237,207