Dataset Information

Design and analysis of group-randomized trials in cancer: A review of current practices.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this paper is to summarize current practices for the design and analysis of group-randomized trials involving cancer-related risk factors or outcomes and to offer recommendations to improve future trials. We searched for group-randomized trials involving cancer-related risk factors or outcomes that were published or online in peer-reviewed journals in 2011-15. During 2016-17, in Bethesda MD, we reviewed 123 articles from 76 journals to characterize their design and their methods for sample size estimation and data analysis. Only 66 (53.7%) of the articles reported appropriate methods for sample size estimation. Only 63 (51.2%) reported exclusively appropriate methods for analysis. These findings suggest that many investigators do not adequately attend to the methodological challenges inherent in group-randomized trials. These practices can lead to underpowered studies, to an inflated type 1 error rate, and to inferences that mislead readers. Investigators should work with biostatisticians or other methodologists familiar with these issues. Funders and editors should ensure careful methodological review of applications and manuscripts. Reviewers should ensure that studies are properly planned and analyzed. These steps are needed to improve the rigor and reproducibility of group-randomized trials. The Office of Disease Prevention (ODP) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has taken several steps to address these issues. ODP offers an online course on the design and analysis of group-randomized trials. ODP is working to increase the number of methodologists who serve on grant review panels. ODP has developed standard language for the Application Guide and the Review Criteria to draw investigators' attention to these issues. Finally, ODP has created a new Research Methods Resources website to help investigators, reviewers, and NIH staff better understand these issues.

SUBMITTER: Murray DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5930119 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Design and analysis of group-randomized trials in cancer: A review of current practices.

Murray David M DM Pals Sherri L SL George Stephanie M SM Kuzmichev Andrey A Lai Gabriel Y GY Lee Jocelyn A JA Myles Ranell L RL Nelson Shakira M SM

Preventive medicine 20180316

The purpose of this paper is to summarize current practices for the design and analysis of group-randomized trials involving cancer-related risk factors or outcomes and to offer recommendations to improve future trials. We searched for group-randomized trials involving cancer-related risk factors or outcomes that were published or online in peer-reviewed journals in 2011-15. During 2016-17, in Bethesda MD, we reviewed 123 articles from 76 journals to characterize their design and their methods f ...[more]

PMID: 29551717

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is a growing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions to prevent or treat delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU). Efforts to improve the conduct of delirium RCTs are underway, but none address issues related to statistical analysis. The purpose of this review is to evaluate heterogeneity in the design and analysis of delirium outcomes and advance methodological recommendations for delirium RCTs in the ICU.MethodsRelevant databases, including PubMed and Embase, were searched with no restrictions on language or publication date; the search was conducted on July 8, 2019. RCTs conducted on adult ICU patients with delirium as the primary outcome were included where trial results were available. Data on frequency and duration of delirium assessments, delirium outcome definitions, and statistical methods were independently extracted in duplicate. The review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020141204).ResultsAmong 65 eligible RCTs, 44 (68%) targeted the prevention of delirium. The duration of follow-up varied, with 31 (48%) RCTs having ≤7 days of follow-up, and only 24 (37%) conducting delirium assessments after ICU discharge. The incidence of delirium was the most common outcome (50 RCTs, 77%) for which 8 unique statistical methods were applied. The most common method, applied to 51 of 56 (91%) delirium incidence outcomes, was the two-sample test comparing the proportion of patients who ever experienced delirium. In the presence of censoring of patients at ICU discharge or death, this test may be misleading. The impact of censoring was also not considered in most analyses of the duration of delirium, as evaluated in 24 RCTs, with 21 (88%) delirium duration outcomes analyzed using a non-parametric test or two-sample t test. Composite outcomes (e.g., rank-based delirium- and coma-free days), used in 11 (17%) RCTs, seldom explicitly defined how ICU discharge, and death were incorporated into the definition and were analyzed using non-parametric tests (11 of 13 (85%) composite outcomes).ConclusionsTo improve delirium RCTs, outcomes should be explicitly defined. To account for censoring due to ICU discharge or death, survival analysis methods should be considered for delirium incidence and duration outcomes; non-parametric tests are recommended for rank-based delirium composite outcomes.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020141204 . Registration date: 7/3/2019.

Project description:Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of lifestyle modification have reported beneficial effects of interventions, compared to control. Whether participation in the control group has benefits is unknown. To determine whether control group participants experience weight loss during the course of RCTs. After prospective registration (PROSPERO CRD42021233070), we conducted searches in Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library and Clinicaltrials.gov databases from inception to May 2021 without language restriction to capture RCTs on dietary advice or physical activity interventions in adults with overweight, obesity or metabolic syndrome. Data extraction and study quality assessment was performed by two independent reviewers. Weight loss in the control group, i.e., the difference between baseline and post-intervention, was pooled using random effects model generating mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistical test. Subgroup meta-analysis was performed stratifying by follow-up period, type of control group protocols and high-quality studies. Among the 22 included studies (4032 participants), the risk of bias was low in 9 (40%) studies. Overall, the controls groups experienced weight loss of - 0.41 kg (95% CI - 0.53 to - 0.28; I2 = 73.5% p < 0.001). To identify a result that is an outlier, we inspected the forest plot for spread of the point estimates and the confidence intervals. The magnitude of the benefit was related to the duration of follow-up (- 0.51 kg, 95% CI - 0.68, - 0.3, for 1-4 months follow-up; - 0.32 kg, 95% CI - 0.58, - 0.07, 5-12 months; - 0.20 kg, 95% CI - 0.49, 0.10, ≥ 12 months). In high-quality studies we found an overall weight loss mean difference of - 0.16 (95% CI - 0.39, 0.09) with a considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 74%; p < 0.000). Among studies including control group in waiting lists and combining standard care, advice and material, no heterogeneity was found (I2 = 0%, p = 0.589) and (I2 = 0%, p = 0.438); and the mean difference was - 0.84 kg (95% CI - 2.47, 0.80) and - 0.65 kg (95% CI - 1.03, - 0.27) respectively. Participation in control groups of RCTs of lifestyle interventions had a benefit in terms of weight loss in meta-analysis with heterogeneity. These results should be used to interpret the benefits observed with respect to intervention effect in trials. That control groups accrue benefits should be included in patient information sheets to encourage participation in future trials among patients with overweight and obesity.

Dataset Information

Design and analysis of group-randomized trials in cancer: A review of current practices.

Publications

Design and analysis of group-randomized trials in cancer: A review of current practices.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets