↓ Skip to main content

Randomized controlled trials: who fails run-in?

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Randomized controlled trials: who fails run-in?
Published in
Trials, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1451-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Judy R. Rees, Leila A. Mott, Elizabeth L. Barry, John A. Baron, Jane C. Figueiredo, Douglas J. Robertson, Robert S. Bresalier, Janet L. Peacock

Abstract

Early identification of participants at risk of run-in failure (RIF) may present opportunities to improve trial efficiency and generalizability. We conducted a partial factorial-design, randomized, controlled trial of calcium and vitamin D to prevent colorectal adenoma recurrence at 11 centers in the United States. At baseline, participants completed two self-administered questionnaires (SAQs) and a questionnaire administered by staff. Participants in the full factorial randomization (calcium, vitamin D, both, or neither) received a placebo during a 3-month single-blinded run-in; women electing to take calcium enrolled in a two-group randomization (calcium with vitamin D, or calcium alone) and received calcium during the run-in. Using logistic regression models, we examined baseline factors associated with RIF in three subgroups: men (N = 1606) and women (N = 301) in the full factorial randomization and women in the two-group randomization (N = 666). Overall, 314/2573 (12 %) participants failed run-in; 211 (67 %) took fewer than 80 % of their tablets (poor adherence), and 103 (33 %) withdrew or were uncooperative. In multivariable models, 8- to 13-fold variation was seen by study center in odds of RIF risk in the two largest groups. In men, RIF decreased with age (adjusted odds ratio [OR] per 5 years 0.85 [95 % confidence interval, CI; 0.76-0.96]) and was associated with being single (OR 1.65 [95 % CI; 1.10-2.47]), not graduating from high school (OR 2.77 [95 % CI; 1.58-4.85]), and missing SAQ data (OR 1.97 [1.40-2.76]). Among women, RIF was associated primarily with health-related factors; RIF risk was lower with higher physical health score (OR 0.73 [95 % CI; 0.62-0.86]) and baseline multivitamin use (OR 0.44 [95 % CI; 0.26-0.75]). Women in the 5-year colonoscopy surveillance interval were at greater risk of RIF than those with 3-year follow-up (OR 1.91 [95 % CI; 1.08-3.37]), and the number of prescription medicines taken was also positively correlated with RIF (p = 0.03). Perceived toxicities during run-in were associated with 12- to 29-fold significantly increased odds of RIF. There were few common baseline predictors of run-in failure in the three randomization groups. However, heterogeneity in run-in failure associated with study center, and missing SAQ data reflect potential opportunities for intervention to improve trial efficiency and retention. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00153816 . Registered September 2005.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 68 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Librarian 4 6%
Other 16 23%
Unknown 16 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Psychology 4 6%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 19 28%