MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973459418 · doi:10.1186/s13063-019-3664-1

Systematic review of basket trials, umbrella trials, and platform trials: a landscape analysis of master protocols

2019· review· en· W2973459418 on OpenAlexaff
Jay Park, Ellie Siden, Michael J. Zoratti, Louis Dron, Ofir Harari, Joel Singer, Richard Lester, Kristian Thorlund, Edward J. Mills

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityStantec (Canada)HIV Legal NetworkMcMaster University Medical CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialInterquartile rangeMEDLINERandomizationProtocol (science)Randomized controlled trialSample size determinationResearch designAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Master protocols, classified as basket trials, umbrella trials, and platform trials, are novel designs that investigate multiple hypotheses through concurrent sub-studies (e.g., multiple treatments or populations or that allow adding/removing arms during the trial), offering enhanced efficiency and a more ethical approach to trial evaluation. Despite the many advantages of these designs, they are infrequently used. METHODS: We conducted a landscape analysis of master protocols using a systematic literature search to determine what trials have been conducted and proposed for an overall goal of improving the literacy in this emerging concept. On July 8, 2019, English-language studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases and hand searches of published reviews and registries. RESULTS: We identified 83 master protocols (49 basket, 18 umbrella, and 16 platform trials). The number of master protocols has increased rapidly over the last five years. Most have been conducted in the US (n = 44/83) and investigated experimental drugs (n = 82/83) in the field of oncology (n = 76/83). The majority of basket trials were exploratory (i.e., phase I/II; n = 47/49) and not randomized (n = 44/49), and more than half (n = 28/48) investigated only a single intervention. The median sample size of basket trials was 205 participants (interquartile range, Q3-Q1 [IQR]: 500-90 = 410), and the median study duration was 22.3 (IQR: 74.1-42.9 = 31.1) months. Similar to basket trials, most umbrella trials were exploratory (n = 16/18), but the use of randomization was more common (n = 8/18). The median sample size of umbrella trials was 346 participants (IQR: 565-252 = 313), and the median study duration was 60.9 (IQR: 81.3-46.9 = 34.4) months. The median number of interventions investigated in umbrella trials was 5 (IQR: 6-4 = 2). The majority of platform trials were randomized (n = 15/16), and phase III investigation (n = 7/15; one did not report information on phase) was more common in platform trials with four of them using seamless II/III design. The median sample size was 892 (IQR: 1835-255 = 1580), and the median study duration was 58.9 (IQR: 101.3-36.9 = 64.4) months. CONCLUSIONS: We anticipate that the number of master protocols will continue to increase at a rapid pace over the upcoming decades. More efforts to improve awareness and training are needed to apply these innovative trial design methods to fields outside of oncology.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.221
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.519
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2210.519
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.016
Bibliometrics0.0340.040
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.935
GPT teacher head0.702
Teacher spread0.233 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
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

Citations435
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207