No idea what this means in clinical trials. Regardless, what the fuck good did this research do in getting survivors recovered?
Adjudication is the legal process by which an arbiter or judge reviews evidence and argumentation, including legal reasoning set forth by opposing parties
Should we adjudicate outcomes in stroke trials? A systematic review
Abstract
Background:
Central adjudication of outcomes is common in randomised 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 twelve studies evaluating central adjudication in stroke trials. The majority of these were secondary analyses of these studies, 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 upwards 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.
Conclusions:
Central adjudication may not be necessary in stroke trials with blinded outcome assessment. However, for open-label studies, central adjudication may be more important.
No comments:
Post a Comment