Randomized trials addressing a similar question are commonly published after a trial stopped early for benefit

OBJECTIVE: We explored how investigators of ongoing or planned trials respond to the publication of a trial stopped early for benefit addressing a similar question. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched multiple databases from the date of publication of the truncated trial through August, 2015. Independent reviewers selected trials and extracted data. RESULTS: We identified 207 trials truncated for early benefit; of which 102 (49%) were followed by subsequent trials (262 subsequent trials, median 2 per truncated trial, range 1-13). Only 99 (38%) provided a rationale justifying conducting a trial despite prior stopping. The top reasons were to address different population or setting (33%), skepticism of truncated trials findings because of small sample size (12%), inconsistency with other evidence (11%), or increased risk of bias (7%). We did not identify significant associations between subsequent trials and characteristics of truncated ones (risk of bias, precision, funding, or rigor of stopping decision). CONCLUSION: About half of the trials stopped early for benefit were followed by subsequent trials addressing a similar question. This suggests that future trialists may have been skeptic about the decision to stop prior trials. A more rigorous threshold for stopping early for benefit is needed.

Randomized trials addressing a similar question are commonly published after a trial stopped early for benefit Journal Articles