N-of-1 trials in the medical literature: A systematic review

Nicole B. Gabler, Naihua Duan, Sunita Vohra, Richard L Kravitz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

107 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: N-of-1 trials (multiple crossover studies conducted in single individuals) may be ideal for determining individual treatment effects and as a tool to estimate heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) in a population. However, comprehensive data on n-of-1 trial methodology and analysis is lacking. We performed this study to describe n-of-1 trial characteristics, examine treatment changes resulting from n-of-1 trial participation, and to determine if trial reporting is adequate for estimating HTE. Methods: We undertook a systematic review of n-of-1 trials published between 1985 and December 2010. Included trials were those having individual treatment episodes as the unit of randomization and reporting individual-specific treatment effects. We abstracted trial characteristics, treatment change information, and analytic Methods. Results: We included 108 trials reporting on 2154 participants. Approximately half (49%) of the trials used a statistical cutoff to determine a superior treatment, whereas the remainder used a graphical comparison (25%) or a clinical significance cutoff (20%). Sixty-seven trials, reporting on 488 people, provided treatment change information: 54% of participants had subsequent treatment decisions consistent with the Results of the trial, 8% had decisions inconsistent with trial Results, and 38% had ambiguous Results. Less than half of the trials (45%) reported adequate information to facilitate the calculation of HTE. Conclusion: N-of-1 trials are a useful tool for enhancing therapeutic precision in a range of conditions and should be conducted more often. To facilitate future meta-analysis, and the estimation of HTE, researchers reporting n-of-1 trial Results should clearly describe individual data.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)761-768
Number of pages8
JournalMedical Care
Volume49
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2011

Fingerprint

Random Allocation
Cross-Over Studies
Meta-Analysis
Research Personnel
Population
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • clinical trials
  • evidence-based medicine
  • n-of-1 trials
  • systematic review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

N-of-1 trials in the medical literature : A systematic review. / Gabler, Nicole B.; Duan, Naihua; Vohra, Sunita; Kravitz, Richard L.

In: Medical Care, Vol. 49, No. 8, 08.2011, p. 761-768.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gabler, Nicole B. ; Duan, Naihua ; Vohra, Sunita ; Kravitz, Richard L. / N-of-1 trials in the medical literature : A systematic review. In: Medical Care. 2011 ; Vol. 49, No. 8. pp. 761-768.
@article{7a945d922c9c4daca8c1e6126f4aa3bb,
title = "N-of-1 trials in the medical literature: A systematic review",
abstract = "Background: N-of-1 trials (multiple crossover studies conducted in single individuals) may be ideal for determining individual treatment effects and as a tool to estimate heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) in a population. However, comprehensive data on n-of-1 trial methodology and analysis is lacking. We performed this study to describe n-of-1 trial characteristics, examine treatment changes resulting from n-of-1 trial participation, and to determine if trial reporting is adequate for estimating HTE. Methods: We undertook a systematic review of n-of-1 trials published between 1985 and December 2010. Included trials were those having individual treatment episodes as the unit of randomization and reporting individual-specific treatment effects. We abstracted trial characteristics, treatment change information, and analytic Methods. Results: We included 108 trials reporting on 2154 participants. Approximately half (49{\%}) of the trials used a statistical cutoff to determine a superior treatment, whereas the remainder used a graphical comparison (25{\%}) or a clinical significance cutoff (20{\%}). Sixty-seven trials, reporting on 488 people, provided treatment change information: 54{\%} of participants had subsequent treatment decisions consistent with the Results of the trial, 8{\%} had decisions inconsistent with trial Results, and 38{\%} had ambiguous Results. Less than half of the trials (45{\%}) reported adequate information to facilitate the calculation of HTE. Conclusion: N-of-1 trials are a useful tool for enhancing therapeutic precision in a range of conditions and should be conducted more often. To facilitate future meta-analysis, and the estimation of HTE, researchers reporting n-of-1 trial Results should clearly describe individual data.",
keywords = "clinical trials, evidence-based medicine, n-of-1 trials, systematic review",
author = "Gabler, {Nicole B.} and Naihua Duan and Sunita Vohra and Kravitz, {Richard L}",
year = "2011",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1097/MLR.0b013e318215d90d",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "49",
pages = "761--768",
journal = "Medical Care",
issn = "0025-7079",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - N-of-1 trials in the medical literature

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Gabler, Nicole B.

AU - Duan, Naihua

AU - Vohra, Sunita

AU - Kravitz, Richard L

PY - 2011/8

Y1 - 2011/8

N2 - Background: N-of-1 trials (multiple crossover studies conducted in single individuals) may be ideal for determining individual treatment effects and as a tool to estimate heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) in a population. However, comprehensive data on n-of-1 trial methodology and analysis is lacking. We performed this study to describe n-of-1 trial characteristics, examine treatment changes resulting from n-of-1 trial participation, and to determine if trial reporting is adequate for estimating HTE. Methods: We undertook a systematic review of n-of-1 trials published between 1985 and December 2010. Included trials were those having individual treatment episodes as the unit of randomization and reporting individual-specific treatment effects. We abstracted trial characteristics, treatment change information, and analytic Methods. Results: We included 108 trials reporting on 2154 participants. Approximately half (49%) of the trials used a statistical cutoff to determine a superior treatment, whereas the remainder used a graphical comparison (25%) or a clinical significance cutoff (20%). Sixty-seven trials, reporting on 488 people, provided treatment change information: 54% of participants had subsequent treatment decisions consistent with the Results of the trial, 8% had decisions inconsistent with trial Results, and 38% had ambiguous Results. Less than half of the trials (45%) reported adequate information to facilitate the calculation of HTE. Conclusion: N-of-1 trials are a useful tool for enhancing therapeutic precision in a range of conditions and should be conducted more often. To facilitate future meta-analysis, and the estimation of HTE, researchers reporting n-of-1 trial Results should clearly describe individual data.

AB - Background: N-of-1 trials (multiple crossover studies conducted in single individuals) may be ideal for determining individual treatment effects and as a tool to estimate heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) in a population. However, comprehensive data on n-of-1 trial methodology and analysis is lacking. We performed this study to describe n-of-1 trial characteristics, examine treatment changes resulting from n-of-1 trial participation, and to determine if trial reporting is adequate for estimating HTE. Methods: We undertook a systematic review of n-of-1 trials published between 1985 and December 2010. Included trials were those having individual treatment episodes as the unit of randomization and reporting individual-specific treatment effects. We abstracted trial characteristics, treatment change information, and analytic Methods. Results: We included 108 trials reporting on 2154 participants. Approximately half (49%) of the trials used a statistical cutoff to determine a superior treatment, whereas the remainder used a graphical comparison (25%) or a clinical significance cutoff (20%). Sixty-seven trials, reporting on 488 people, provided treatment change information: 54% of participants had subsequent treatment decisions consistent with the Results of the trial, 8% had decisions inconsistent with trial Results, and 38% had ambiguous Results. Less than half of the trials (45%) reported adequate information to facilitate the calculation of HTE. Conclusion: N-of-1 trials are a useful tool for enhancing therapeutic precision in a range of conditions and should be conducted more often. To facilitate future meta-analysis, and the estimation of HTE, researchers reporting n-of-1 trial Results should clearly describe individual data.

KW - clinical trials

KW - evidence-based medicine

KW - n-of-1 trials

KW - systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79961030340&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79961030340&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318215d90d

DO - 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318215d90d

M3 - Article

C2 - 21478771

AN - SCOPUS:79961030340

VL - 49

SP - 761

EP - 768

JO - Medical Care

JF - Medical Care

SN - 0025-7079

IS - 8

ER -