Dataset Information

Review of the Reporting of Survival Analyses within Randomised Controlled Trials and the Implications for Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Meta-analysis is a growing approach to evidence synthesis and network meta-analysis in particular represents an important and developing method within Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Meta-analysis of survival data is usually performed using the individual summary statistic-the hazard ratio (HR) from each randomised controlled trial (RCT).

Objectives

The objectives of this study are to: (i) review the methods and reporting of survival analyses in oncology RCTs; and (ii) assess the suitability and relevance of survival data reported in RCTs for inclusion into meta-analysis.

Methods

Five oncology journals were searched to identify Phase III RCTs published between April and July 2015. Eligible studies included those that analysed a survival outcome.

Results

Thirty-two RCTs reporting survival outcomes in cancer populations were identified. None of the publications reported details relating to a strategy for statistical model building, the goodness of fit of the final model, or final model validation for the analysis of survival outcomes. The majority of studies (88%) reported the use of Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression to analyse survival endpoints. However, most publications failed to report the validation of the statistical models in terms of the PH assumption.

Conclusions

This review highlights deficiencies in terms of reporting the methods and validity of survival analyses within oncology RCTs. We support previous recommendations to encourage authors to improve the reporting of survival analyses in journal publications. We also recommend that the final choice of a statistical model for survival should be informed by goodness of model fit to a given dataset, and that model assumptions are validated. The failure of trial investigators and statisticians to investigate the PH for RCT survival data is likely to result in clinical decisions based on inappropriate methods. The development of alternative approaches for the meta-analysis of survival outcomes when the PH assumption is implausible is required if valid clinical decisions are to be made.

SUBMITTER: Batson S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4858202 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Review of the Reporting of Survival Analyses within Randomised Controlled Trials and the Implications for Meta-Analysis.

Batson Sarah S Greenall Gemma G Hudson Pollyanna P

PloS one 20160505 5

<h4>Background</h4>Meta-analysis is a growing approach to evidence synthesis and network meta-analysis in particular represents an important and developing method within Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Meta-analysis of survival data is usually performed using the individual summary statistic-the hazard ratio (HR) from each randomised controlled trial (RCT).<h4>Objectives</h4>The objectives of this study are to: (i) review the methods and reporting of survival analyses in oncology RCTs; and ( ...[more]

PMID: 27149107

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the impact of industry funding on reporting of subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials published in 118 core clinical journals (defined by the National Library of Medicine) in 2007. 1140 study reports in a 1:1 ratio by high (five general medicine journals with largest number of total citations in 2007) versus lower impact journals, were randomly sampled. Two reviewers, independently and in duplicate, used standardised, piloted forms to screen study reports for eligibility and to extract data. They also used explicit criteria to determine whether a randomised controlled trial reported subgroup analyses. Logistic regression was used to examine the association of prespecified study characteristics with reporting versus not reporting of subgroup analyses.Results469 randomised controlled trials were included, of which 207 (44%) reported subgroup analyses. High impact journals (adjusted odds ratio 2.64, 95% confidence interval 1.62 to 4.33), non-surgical (versus surgical) trials (2.10, 1.26 to 3.50), and larger sample size (3.38, 1.64 to 6.99) were associated with more frequent reporting of subgroup analyses. The strength of association between trial funding and reporting of subgroups differed in trials with and without statistically significant primary outcomes (interaction P=0.02). In trials without statistically significant results for the primary outcome, industry funded trials were more likely to report subgroup analyses (2.29, 1.30 to 4.72) than non-industry funded trials. This was not true for trials with a statistically significant primary outcome (0.79, 0.46 to 1.36). Industry funded trials were associated with less frequent prespecification of subgroup hypotheses (31.3% v 38.0%, adjusted odds ratio 0.49, 0.26 to 0.94), and less use of the interaction test for analyses of subgroup effects (41.4% v 49.1%, 0.52, 0.28 to 0.97) than non-industry funded trials.ConclusionIndustry funded randomised controlled trials, in the absence of statistically significant primary outcomes, are more likely to report subgroup analyses than non-industry funded trials. Industry funded trials less frequently prespecify subgroup hypotheses and less frequently test for interaction than non-industry funded trials. Subgroup analyses from industry funded trials with negative results for the primary outcome should be viewed with caution.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the incidence and characteristics of randomised controlled trials that report using the modified intention to treat approach, and how the approach is described.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, ISI Web of Knowledge, Ovid, HighWire Press, Science-Direct, Ingenta, Medscape, BioMed Central, Springer, and Wiley, from inception to December 2006.Main outcome measuresIncidence of trials in which use of modified intention to treat was reported, and how the approach was described (classified according to the type and number of deviations from the intention to treat approach).Results475 randomised controlled trials reported use of a modified intention to treat analysis. Of these, 76 (16%) were published in five highly cited general medical journals. The incidence of all trials that reported use of modified intention to treat published in journals indexed in Medline increased from 0.006% in 1982-6 to 0.5% in 2002-6 (P<0.001 for linear trend). When the description of the modified intention to treat was examined in each trial, 192 (40%) reported one type of deviation from the intention to treat approach, 261 (55%) reported two or more types, and 22 (5%) did not describe any type. In 266 (56%) of the trials the deviation was related to the treatment received, in 196 (41%) to a post baseline assessment, in 118 (25%) to a baseline assessment, in 108 (23%) to a target condition, and in 23 (5%) to follow-up. Post-randomisation exclusions occurred in 380 (80%) trials. The results reported by 270 of the 352 (77%) superiority trials favoured the drug under investigation. All of the 123 trials using equivalence or non-inferiority methods to investigate interventions reported results that favoured their assumptions.ConclusionsRandomised controlled trials that report using a modified intention to treat are increasingly being published in the medical literature. The descriptions of such an approach were ambiguous, and may cover any type of descriptions for exclusion, such as missing data and deviation from protocol. Explicit statements about post-randomisation exclusions should replace the ambiguous terminology of modified intention to treat.

Project description:ObjectiveTo ascertain contemporary approaches to the collection, reporting and analysis of adverse events (AEs) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a primary efficacy outcome.DesignA review of clinical trials of drug interventions from four high impact medical journals.Data sourcesElectronic contents table of the BMJ, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) were searched for reports of original RCTs published between September 2015 and September 2016.MethodsA prepiloted checklist was used and single data extraction was performed by three reviewers with independent check of a randomly sampled subset to verify quality. We extracted data on collection methods, assessment of severity and causality, reporting criteria, analysis methods and presentation of AE data.ResultsWe identified 184 eligible reports (BMJ n=3; JAMA n=38, Lancet n=62 and NEJM n=81). Sixty-two per cent reported some form of spontaneous AE collection but only 29% included details of specific prompts used to ascertain AE data. Numbers that withdrew from the trial were well reported (80%), however only 35% of these reported whether withdrawals were due to AEs. Results presented and analysis performed was predominantly on 'patients with at least one event' with 84% of studies ignoring repeated events. Despite a lack of power to undertake formal hypothesis testing, 47% performed such tests for binary outcomes.ConclusionsThis review highlighted that the collection, reporting and analysis of AE data in clinical trials is inconsistent and RCTs as a source of safety data are underused. Areas to improve include reducing information loss when analysing at patient level and inappropriate practice of underpowered multiple hypothesis testing. Implementation of standard reporting practices could enable a more accurate synthesis of safety data and development of guidance for statistical methodology to assess causality of AEs could facilitate better statistical practice.

Project description:IntroductionSystematic reviews collate trial data to provide evidence to support clinical decision-making. For effective synthesis, there must be consistency in outcome reporting. There is no agreed set of outcomes for reporting the effect of burn care interventions. Issues with outcome reporting have been identified, although not systematically investigated. This study gathers empirical evidence on any variation in outcome reporting and assesses the need for a core outcome set for burn care research.MethodsElectronic searches of four search engines were undertaken from January 2012 to December 2016 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using medical subject headings and free text terms including 'burn', 'scald' 'thermal injury' and 'RCT'. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted outcomes verbatim and recorded the timing of outcome measurement. Duplicate outcomes (exact wording ± different?spelling), similar outcomes (albumin in blood, serum albumin) and identical outcomes measured at different times were removed. Variation in outcome reporting was determined by assessing the number of unique outcomes reported across all included trials. Outcomes were classified into domains. Bias was reduced using five researchers and a patient working independently and together.Results147 trials were included, of which 127 (86.4%) were RCTs, 13 (8.8%) pilot studies and 7 (4.8%) RCT protocols. 1494 verbatim clinical outcomes were reported; 955 were unique. 76.8% of outcomes were measured within 6?months of injury. Commonly reported outcomes were defined differently. Numbers of unique outcomes per trial varied from one to 37 (median 9; IQR 5,13). No single outcome was reported across all studies demonstrating inconsistency of reporting. Outcomes were classified into 54 domains. Numbers of outcomes per domain ranged from 1 to 166 (median 11; IQR 3,24).ConclusionsThis review has demonstrated heterogeneity in outcome reporting in burn care research which will hinder amalgamation of study data. We recommend the development of a Core Outcome Set.Prospero registration numberCRD42017060908.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the association between intake of non-sugar sweeteners (NSS) and important health outcomes in generally healthy or overweight/obese adults and children. DESIGN:Systematic review following standard Cochrane review methodology. DATA SOURCES:Medline (Ovid), Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Clinicaltrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant publications. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:Studies including generally healthy adults or children with or without overweight or obesity were eligible. Included study designs allowed for a direct comparison of no intake or lower intake of NSS with higher NSS intake. NSSs had to be clearly named, the dose had to be within the acceptable daily intake, and the intervention duration had to be at least seven days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Body weight or body mass index, glycaemic control, oral health, eating behaviour, preference for sweet taste, cancer, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, mood, behaviour, neurocognition, and adverse effects. RESULTS:The search resulted in 13?941 unique records. Of 56 individual studies that provided data for this review, 35 were observational studies. In adults, evidence of very low and low certainty from a limited number of small studies indicated a small beneficial effect of NSSs on body mass index (mean difference -0.6, 95% confidence interval -1.19 to -0.01; two studies, n=174) and fasting blood glucose (-0.16 mmol/L, -0.26 to -0.06; two, n=52). Lower doses of NSSs were associated with lower weight gain (-0.09 kg, -0.13 to -0.05; one, n=17?934) compared with higher doses of NSSs (very low certainty of evidence). For all other outcomes, no differences were detected between the use and non-use of NSSs, or between different doses of NSSs. No evidence of any effect of NSSs was seen on overweight or obese adults or children actively trying to lose weight (very low to moderate certainty). In children, a smaller increase in body mass index z score was observed with NSS intake compared with sugar intake (-0.15, -0.17 to -0.12; two, n=528, moderate certainty of evidence), but no significant differences were observed in body weight (-0.60 kg, -1.33 to 0.14; two, n=467, low certainty of evidence), or between different doses of NSSs (very low to moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS:Most health outcomes did not seem to have differences between the NSS exposed and unexposed groups. Of the few studies identified for each outcome, most had few participants, were of short duration, and their methodological and reporting quality was limited; therefore, confidence in the reported results is limited. Future studies should assess the effects of NSSs with an appropriate intervention duration. Detailed descriptions of interventions, comparators, and outcomes should be included in all reports. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:Prospero CRD42017047668.

Dataset Information

Review of the Reporting of Survival Analyses within Randomised Controlled Trials and the Implications for Meta-Analysis.

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Review of the Reporting of Survival Analyses within Randomised Controlled Trials and the Implications for Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets