Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Mar;30(3):156-61.
doi: 10.1097/bot.0000000000000533.

Does Participation in a Randomized Clinical Trial Change Outcomes? An Evaluation of Patients Not Enrolled in the SPRINT Trial

Carol Alice Lin, Mohit Bhandari, Gordon Guyatt, Stephen D Walter, Emil H Schemitsch, Marc Swiontkowski, David Sanders, Paul Tornetta 3rd; SPRINT Investigators
Collaborators
Randomized Controlled Trial

Does Participation in a Randomized Clinical Trial Change Outcomes? An Evaluation of Patients Not Enrolled in the SPRINT Trial

Carol Alice Lin et al. J Orthop Trauma. 2016 Mar.

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the extent to which knowledge from clinical trial protocols is transferred to nonparticipating patients.

Design: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data from a large clinical trial.

Setting: Six level-1 international trauma centers.

Methods: We compared rates and timing of reoperation in a subset of patients enrolled in the Study to Prospectively evaluate Reamed Intramedullary Nails in Patients with Tibial Fractures (SPRINT) to concurrent patients who were eligible but not enrolled. This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected trial data. The records of 6 of the original SPRINT centers were searched for non-SPRINT patients who underwent intramedullary nailing of a closed tibial fracture. The rate and timing of reoperation were compared. A P < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results: One hundred fourteen non-SPRINT patients were compared with 328 patients enrolled in SPRINT from those same sites. There were 7 reoperations (6.1%) in non-SPRINT patients versus 18 (5.2%) in SPRINT patients [odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 3.13; P = 0.811]. There was no difference in the time to reoperation between the SPRINT and non-SPRINT patients (6.2 vs. 6.8 months, 95% CI of the difference -3.8 to 2.6; P = 0.685) or in the proportion of patients who underwent reoperation before 6 months (29% vs. 43%; OR 1.75; 95% CI 0.18 to 15.41; P = 0.647).

Conclusions: Patients not enrolled in SPRINT had similarly low rates of reoperation for nonunion, and the average time to reoperation for both groups was longer than 6 months. A 6-month waiting period may have allowed slow-to-heal fractures adequate time to heal, thereby reducing the rate of diagnosis of nonunion. As such, this waiting period could contribute to lower-than-expected reoperation rates for nonunion. It is possible that clinical trials may beneficially influence the care of nonenrolled patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms