Skip to main content
NCBI home page
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology logoLink to British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
. 1988 Oct;26(4):355–362. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1988.tb03392.x

How can we design trials to detect clinically important changes in disease severity?

D M Chaput de Saintonge 1, J R Kirwan 1, S J Evans 1, G J Crane 1
PMCID: PMC1386555  PMID: 3190985

Abstract

1. Forty-eight British rheumatologists judged the change in disease activity in 50 sets of patient data drawn from life and presented as 'paper patients'. Each set comprised two values, recorded a year apart, for 10 commonly measured clinical variables. Doctors recorded the size of improvement or deterioration on a visual analogue scale (VAS) and whether the change was clinically important or not. 2. Clinical judgement policies were modelled using linear regression of the clinical variables on the VAS score. 3. Doctors showed little agreement over which patients had improved and which had not. Possible reasons could be discovered by inspecting their judgement policies. 4. The weights attributed to the clinical variables differed considerably between doctors. Furthermore weights the doctors believed they attached to the variables frequently differed from the weights in the regression models. 5. These models could be used to calculate the smallest change required in any clinical variable before it would be considered clinically important. However, the size of such changes was often outside the observed clinical range suggesting that the use of single outcome variables is unrealistic. 6. The modelling procedure described can be applied during the planning stage of the trial to participating physicians, patients, health economists or any other group having an interest in the results. The models themselves can then be used to reach a consensus policy for judging what is a successful outcome. This may be expressed as a linear combination of specific outcome measures. Its use may improve the power of clinical trials and the relevance of their results.

Full text

PDF
355

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bech P., Haaber A., Joyce C. R. Experiments on clinical observation and judgement in the assessment of depression: profiled videotapes and Judgement Analysis. Psychol Med. 1986 Nov;16(4):873–883. doi: 10.1017/s0033291700011880. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Chaput de Saintonge D. M., Hattersley L. A. Antibiotics for otitis media: can we help doctors agree? Fam Pract. 1985 Dec;2(4):205–212. doi: 10.1093/fampra/2.4.205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hilden J. Reporting clinical trials from the viewpoint of a patient's choice of treatment. Stat Med. 1987 Oct-Nov;6(7):745–752. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780060705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Kirwan J. R., Chaput De Saintonge D. M., Joyce C. R., Currey H. L. Clinical judgement analysis--practical application in rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol. 1983 Aug;22(3 Suppl):18–23. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/xxii.suppl_1.18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kirwan J. R., Chaput de Saintonge D. M., Joyce C. R., Currey H. L. Clinical judgment in rheumatoid arthritis. I. Rheumatologists' opinions and the development of 'paper patients'. Ann Rheum Dis. 1983 Dec;42(6):644–647. doi: 10.1136/ard.42.6.644. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kirwan J. R., Chaput de Saintonge D. M., Joyce C. R., Currey H. L. Clinical judgment in rheumatoid arthritis. II. Judging 'current disease activity' in clinical practice. Ann Rheum Dis. 1983 Dec;42(6):648–651. doi: 10.1136/ard.42.6.648. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kirwan J. R., Chaput de Saintonge D. M., Joyce C. R., Holmes J., Currey H. L. Inability of rheumatologists to describe their true policies for assessing rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1986 Feb;45(2):156–161. doi: 10.1136/ard.45.2.156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kirwan J. R., Currey H. L. Clinical judgment in rheumatoid arthritis. IV. Rheumatologists' assessments of disease remain stable over long periods. Ann Rheum Dis. 1984 Oct;43(5):695–697. doi: 10.1136/ard.43.5.695. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Pocock S. J., Geller N. L., Tsiatis A. A. The analysis of multiple endpoints in clinical trials. Biometrics. 1987 Sep;43(3):487–498. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Spiegelhalter D. J., Freedman L. S. A predictive approach to selecting the size of a clinical trial, based on subjective clinical opinion. Stat Med. 1986 Jan-Feb;5(1):1–13. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780050103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Stewart T. R., Joyce C. R. Increasing the power of clinical trials through judgment analysis. Med Decis Making. 1988 Jan-Mar;8(1):33–38. doi: 10.1177/0272989X8800800104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology are provided here courtesy of British Pharmacological Society

RESOURCES