Threats to validity of the PESTO perispinal etanercept stroke trial: a document-based clinical trial evaluation
Abstract
The PESTO trial's claim to provide Class I evidence that perispinal etanercept does not improve quality of life is precluded by the absence of publicly verifiable trial-wide inclusion/exclusion criteria and by its use of a novel primary responder definition that utilizes a non-accepted scoring pathway, of no established validity or reliability, that was first specified after data collection was completed. PESTO's Statistical Analysis Plan differs from the analysis its operative protocols and registration specify, and no amendment, registry update, or explanation discloses the change. PESTO's published primary quality-of-life measurement is unreliable, and its definitive negative conclusion cannot be relied upon as a statement of what the trial established. Whether the reported estimate would survive the prespecified analysis, the record cannot yet answer. Correction of PESTO's record and conclusions and reclassification of its Class I designation are due now. Further, independent multidisciplinary review, with separate statistical and research-ethics components, is required.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Comparative effectiveness of GLP-1 receptor agonists on glycaemic control, body weight, and lipid profile for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis
- Adverse effects of cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors on renal and arrhythmia events: meta-analysis of randomized trials
- Benefits and harms of drug treatment for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
- Comparative effectiveness and safety of statins as a class and of specific statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A systematic review, meta‐analysis, and network meta‐analysis of randomized trials with 94,283 participants
- Screen time increases overweight and obesity risk among adolescents: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis
- Exposure to WHO AWaRe antibiotics and isolation of multi-drug resistant bacteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.