A few days ago Steve Simon told us that his first rule of thumb for
critical appraisal is to focus on how the data was collected (and not to
focus on how it was analyzed).
Coincidentally I was asked yesterday how to interpret results from an
(industry funded) "enriched enrollment study" (1).
Should we regard the study as merely providing proof of concept (2)? Or,
should we regard the results as supporting use of the intervention in the
general population? Experts have different opinions.
(I shall resist the temptation to speculate on who might be enriched by
enriched enrolment. I shall also resist the temptation to ask
whether "enrolment" should be enriched with another "l".)
References
(1) Topical lidocaine patch relieves postherpetic neuralgia more
effectively than a vehicle topical patch: results of an enriched
enrollment study. Galer BS, Rowbotham MC, Perander J, Friedman E. Pain.
1999 Apr;80(3):533-8.
(2) Enriched enrolment: definition and effects of enrichment and dose in
trials of pregabalin and gabapentin in neuropathic pain. A systematic
review. Straube S, Derry S, McQuay HJ, Moore RA. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008
May 16.
Michael Power
Clinical Knowledge Summaries Service www.cks.library.nhs.uk
standard disclaimers (plagiarised from steve)
|