OBJECTIVE
To study ICU trials published in the four highest-impact general medicine journals by comparing them with concurrently published non-ICU trials in the same journals.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed was searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2014 and October 2021 in the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the British Medical Journal.
STUDY SELECTION
Original RCT publications investigating any type of intervention in any patient population.
DATA EXTRACTION
ICU RCTs were defined as RCTs exclusively including patients admitted to the ICU. Year and journal of publication, sample size, study design, funding source, study outcome, type of intervention, Fragility Index (FI), and Fragility Quotient were collected.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A total of 2,770 publications were screened. Of 2,431 original RCTs, 132 (5.4%) were ICU RCTs, gradually rising from 4% in 2014 to 7.5% in 2021. ICU RCTs and non-ICU RCTs included a comparable number of patients (634 vs 584, p = 0.528). Notable differences for ICU RCTs were the low occurrence of commercial funding (5% vs 36%, p < 0.001), the low number of RCTs that reached statistical significance (29% vs 65%, p < 0.001), and the low FI when they did reach significance (3 vs 12, p = 0.008).
CONCLUSIONS
In the last 8 years, RCTs in ICU medicine made up a meaningful, and growing, portion of RCTs published in high-impact general medicine journals. In comparison with concurrently published RCTs in non-ICU disciplines, statistical significance was rare and often hinged on the outcome events of just a few patients. Increased attention should be paid to realistic expectations of treatment effects when designing ICU RCTs to detect differences in treatment effects that are reliable and clinically relevant.
[1]
S. Lasocki,et al.
Spin and fragility in randomised controlled trials in the anaesthesia literature: a systematic review.
,
2023,
British journal of anaesthesia.
[2]
J. Hermanides,et al.
Statistical robustness of RCTs in high-impact journals has improved, but was low across medical specialties.
,
2022,
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.
[3]
S. Jaber,et al.
A multivariate model for successful publication of intensive care medicine randomized controlled trials in the highest impact factor journals: the SCOTI score
,
2021,
Annals of Intensive Care.
[4]
Benjamin R. Baer,et al.
Reassembling the fragility index: a demonstration of statistical reasoning.
,
2021,
Journal of clinical epidemiology.
[5]
D. Brodie,et al.
Powering Bias and Clinically Important Treatment Effects in Randomized Trials of Critical Illness.
,
2020,
Critical care medicine.
[6]
Gail E. Potter,et al.
Dismantling the Fragility Index: A demonstration of statistical reasoning
,
2020,
Statistics in medicine.
[7]
F. Crea,et al.
Characteristics of Contemporary Randomized Clinical Trials and Their Association With the Trial Funding Source in Invasive Cardiovascular Interventions.
,
2020,
JAMA internal medicine.
[8]
U. Dirnagl,et al.
Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste
,
2014,
The Lancet.
[9]
S. Aberegg,et al.
Delta inflation: a bias in the design of randomized controlled trials in critical care medicine
,
2010,
Critical care.
[10]
D. Moher,et al.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
,
2009,
BMJ.