IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0185536.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quality of reporting in oncology phase II trials: A 5-year assessment through systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Julien Langrand-Escure
  • Romain Rivoirard
  • Mathieu Oriol
  • Fabien Tinquaut
  • Chloé Rancoule
  • Frank Chauvin
  • Nicolas Magné
  • Aurélie Bourmaud

Abstract

Background: Phase II clinical trials are a cornerstone of the development in experimental treatments They work as a "filter" for phase III trials confirmation. Surprisingly the attrition ratio in Phase III trials in oncology is significantly higher than in any other medical specialty. This suggests phase II trials in oncology fail to achieve their goal. Data sources: A literature review was conducted among all phase II and phase II/III clinical trials published during a 5-year period (2010–2015). Study eligibility criteria: All articles electronically published by three randomly-selected oncology journals with Impact-Factors>4 were included: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Annals of Oncology and British Journal of Cancer. Intervention: Quality of reporting was assessed using the Key Methodological Score. Results: 557 articles were included. 315 trials were single-arm studies (56.6%), 193 (34.6%) were randomized and 49 (8.8%) were non-randomized multiple-arm studies. The Methodological Score was equal to 0 (lowest level), 1, 2, 3 (highest level) respectively for 22 (3.9%), 119 (21.4%), 270 (48.5%) and 146 (26.2%) articles. The primary end point is almost systematically reported (90.5%), while sample size calculation is missing in 66% of the articles. 3 variables were independently associated with reporting of a high standard: presence of statistical design (p-value

Suggested Citation

  • Julien Langrand-Escure & Romain Rivoirard & Mathieu Oriol & Fabien Tinquaut & Chloé Rancoule & Frank Chauvin & Nicolas Magné & Aurélie Bourmaud, 2017. "Quality of reporting in oncology phase II trials: A 5-year assessment through systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0185536
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185536
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185536
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185536&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0185536?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0185536. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.