Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Minimal standards for reporting clinical trial results in transplantation

  • Chapter
Immunosuppression under Trial

Part of the book series: Transplantation and Clinical Immunology ((TRAC,volume 31))

  • 51 Accesses

Abstract

A clinical trial is a planned (prospective) experiment in which individuals receive the same or similar therapy in order to determine the risk and/or benefit of that therapy. Not all therapeutic decisions in medicine are based on the results of clinical trials. For example, insulin is the standard treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis, even though this therapy was never tested in a randomized controlled trial. Similarly, the need to use immunosuppression in organ transplantation (excepting transplants between identical twins) was not established by clinical trials. However, virtually every other decision regarding immunosuppression has subsequently been subjected to rigorous testing in clinical trials. Thus, the importance of clinical trials in transplantation is self-evident.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Liberati A, Himel HN, Chalmers TC. A quality assessment of randomized control trials of primary treatment of breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 1986; 4: 942–951.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Chalmers TC, Smith HJ, Blackburn B et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Controlled Clin. Trials. 1981; 2: 31–49.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Oxman AD, Sackett DL, Guyatt GH. Users’ guides to the medical literature. I. How to get started. The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1993; 270: 2093–2095.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Moher D, Jadad AR, Tugwell P. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. Current issues and future directions. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care. 1996; 12: 195–208.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Controlled Clin. Trials. 1996; 17: 1–12.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996; 276: 637–639.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Emerson JD, Burdick E, Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. An empirical study of the possible relation of treatment differences to quality scores in controlled randomized clinical trials. Controlled Clin. Trials. 1990; 11: 339–352.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Khan KS, Daya S, Jadad A. The importance of quality of primary studies in producing unbiased systematic reviews. Arch. Intern. Med. 1996; 156: 661–666.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998; 352: 609–613.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995; 273: 408–412.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Simms RW et al. A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. Arch. Intern. Med. 1994; 154: 157–163.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Land W, Castro LA, Hillebrand G, Günther K, Gokel JM. Conversion rejection consequences by changing the immunosuppressive therapy from cyclosporine to azathioprine after kidney transplantation. Transplant. Proc. 1983; 15: 2857–2861.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hoitsma AJ, Wetzels JFM, van Lier HJJ, Berden JHM, Koene RAP. Cyclosporin treatment with conversion after three months versus conventional immunosuppression in renal allograft recipients. Lancet. 1987; 1: 584–586.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Morris PJ, Chapman JR, Allen RD et al. Cyclosporin conversion versus conventional immunosuppression: long-term follow-up and histological evaluation. Lancet. 1987; 1: 586–591.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Spielberger M, Aigner F, Schmid T, Bösmüller C, Königsrainer A, Margreiter R. Long-term results of cadaveric renal transplantation after conversion from cyclosporine to azathioprine: a controlled randomized trial. Transplant. Proc. 1988; 20: 169–170.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hall BM, Tiller DJ, Hardie I et al. Comparison of three immunosuppressive regimens in cadaver renal transplantation: long-term cyclosporine, short-term cyclosporine followed by azathioprine and prednisolone, and azathioprine and prednisolone without cyclosporine. N. Engl. J. Med. 1988; 318: 1499–1507.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Sagalowsky AI, Reisman ME, Dawidson I, Toto R, Peters PC, Helderman JH. Late cyclosporine conversion carried risk of irreversible rejection. Transplant. Proc. 1988; 20: 157–160.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Busing M, Hölzer H, Schareck WD et al. Is long-term therapy without cyclosporin A (CsA) indispensable or dangerous? One-year results of a prospective randomized trial. Transplant. Proc. 1989; 21: 1601–1603.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sweny P, Lui SF, Scoble JE, Varghese Z, Fernando ON, Moorhead JE Conversion of stable renal allografts at one year from cyclosporin A to azathioprine: a randomized controlled study. Transplant. Int. 1990; 3: 19–22.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hiesse C, Neyrat N, Deglise-Favre A et al. Randomized prospective trial of elective cyclosporine withdrawal from triple therapy at 6 months after cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplant. Proc. 1991; 23: 987–989.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Isoniemi HM, Ahonen J, Tikkanen MJ et al. Long-term consequences of different immunosuppressive regimens for renal allografts. Transplantation. 1993; 55: 494–499.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Pedersen EB, Hansen HE, Kornerup HJ, Madsen S, Sorensen AWS. Long-term graft survival after conversion from cyclosporin to azathioprine 1 year after renal transplantation. A prospective, randomized study from 1 to 6 years after transplantation. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 1993; 8: 250–254.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Heering P, Westhoff A, Ivens K, Kutkuhn B, Grabensee B. Reduction of immunosuppressive therapy after renal transplantation: a randomized study. Transplant. Proc. 1994; 26: 2530–2532.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Delmonico FL, Tolkoff-Rubin M, Auchincloss H Jr et al. Management of the renal allograft recipient: Immunosuppressive protocols for long-term success. Clin. Transplant. 1994; 8: 34–39.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hollander AAMJ, van Saase JLCM, Kootte AMM et al. Beneficial effects of conversion from cyclosporin to azathioprine after kidney transplantation. Lancet. 1995; 345: 610–614.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Saadi MG, Francis MR, Selim OE. Five-year follow-up of early post-renal transplantation cyclosporin withdrawal: Do we benefit from a state of tolerance? Transplant. Proc. 1997; 29: 2593–2595.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Moher D. CONSORT: An evolving tool to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 1998; 279: 1489–1491.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. B. L. Kasiske
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Chakkera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

P. Cochat J. Traeger C. Merieux M. Derchavane

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kasiske, B.L., Chakkera, H. (1999). Minimal standards for reporting clinical trial results in transplantation. In: Cochat, P., Traeger, J., Merieux, C., Derchavane, M. (eds) Immunosuppression under Trial. Transplantation and Clinical Immunology, vol 31. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4643-2_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4643-2_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-5960-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-4643-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation