Dataset Information

Outcome assessment by central adjudicators in randomised stroke trials: Simulation of differential and non-differential misclassification.

ABSTRACT: Introduction:Adjudication of the primary outcome in randomised trials is thought to control misclassification. We investigated the amount of misclassification needed before adjudication changed the primary trial results.Patients (or materials) and methods: We included data from five randomised stroke trials. Differential misclassification was introduced for each primary outcome until the estimated treatment effect was altered. This was simulated 1000 times. We calculated the between-simulation mean proportion of participants that needed to be differentially misclassified to alter the treatment effect. In addition, we simulated hypothetical trials with a binary outcome and varying sample size (1000-10,000), overall event rate (10%-50%) and treatment effect (0.67-0.90). We introduced non-differential misclassification until the treatment effect was non-significant at 5% level. Results:For the five trials, the range of unweighted kappa values were reduced from 0.89-0.97 to 0.65-0.85 before the treatment effect was altered. This corresponded to 2.1%-6% of participants misclassified differentially for trials with a binary outcome. For the hypothetical trials, those with a larger sample size, stronger treatment effect and overall event rate closer to 50% needed a higher proportion of events non-differentially misclassified before the treatment effect became non-significant. Discussion:We found that only a small amount of differential misclassification was required before adjudication altered the primary trial results, whereas a considerable proportion of participants needed to be misclassified non-differentially before adjudication changed trial conclusions. Given that differential misclassification should not occur in trials with sufficient blinding, these results suggest that central adjudication is of most use in studies with unblinded outcome assessment. Conclusion:For trials without adequate blinding, central adjudication is vital to control for differential misclassification. However, for large blinded trials, adjudication is of less importance and may not be necessary.

SUBMITTER: Godolphin PJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7313361 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Outcome assessment by central adjudicators in randomised stroke trials: Simulation of differential and non-differential misclassification.

Godolphin Peter J PJ Bath Philip M PM Partlett Christopher C Berge Eivind E Brown Martin M MM Eliasziw Misha M Sandset Per Morten PM Serena Joaquín J Montgomery Alan A AA

European stroke journal 20200226 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>Adjudication of the primary outcome in randomised trials is thought to control misclassification. We investigated the amount of misclassification needed before adjudication changed the primary trial results.<b>Patients (or materials) and methods:</b> We included data from five randomised stroke trials. Differential misclassification was introduced for each primary outcome until the estimated treatment effect was altered. This was simulated 1000 times. We calculated the betwe ...[more]

PMID: 32637651

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are often considered as the gold standard for assessing new health interventions. Patients are randomly assigned to receive an intervention or control. The effect of the intervention can be estimated by comparing outcomes between groups, whose prognostic factors are expected to balance by randomisation. However, patients' non-compliance with their assigned treatment will undermine randomisation and potentially bias the estimate of treatment effect. Through simulation, we aim to compare common approaches in analysing non-compliant data under different non-compliant scenarios.SettingsBased on a real study, we simulated hypothetical trials by varying three non-compliant factors: the type, randomness and degree of non-compliance. We compared the intention-to-treat (ITT), as-treated (AT), per-protocol (PP), instrumental variable (IV) and complier average casual effect (CACE) analyses to estimate large (50% improvement over the control), moderate (25% improvement) and null (same as the control) treatment effects. Different approaches were compared by the bias of estimate, mean square error (MSE) and 95% coverage of the true value.ResultsFor a large or moderate treatment effect, the ITT estimate was considerably biased in all scenarios. The AT, PP, IV and CACE estimates were unbiased when non-compliant behaviours were random. The IV estimate was unbiased when non-compliant behaviours were symmetrically dependent on patients' conditions. The PP estimate was mostly unbiased when patients in the control group did not have access to the intervention. When the intervention was not different from the control, the ITT was less biased than the other approaches. Similar results were found when comparing the MSE and 95% coverage.ConclusionsThe standard ITT analysis under non-compliance is biased when the intervention has a moderate or large effect. Alternative analyses can provide unbiased or less biased estimates. Based on the results, we make some suggestions on choosing optimal approaches for analysing specific non-compliant scenarios.

Project description:IntroductionNon-compliance is a common challenge for researchers and may reduce the power of an intention-to-treat analysis. Whilst a per protocol approach attempts to deal with this issue, it can result in biased estimates. Several methods to resolve this issue have been identified in previous reviews, but there is limited evidence supporting their use. This review aimed to identify simulation studies which compare such methods, assess the extent to which certain methods have been investigated and determine their performance under various scenarios.MethodsA systematic search of several electronic databases including MEDLINE and Scopus was carried out from conception to 30th November 2022. Included papers were published in a peer-reviewed journal, readily available in the English language and focused on comparing relevant methods in a superiority randomised controlled trial under a simulation study. Articles were screened using these criteria and a predetermined extraction form used to identify relevant information. A quality assessment appraised the risk of bias in individual studies. Extracted data was synthesised using tables, figures and a narrative summary. Both screening and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers with disagreements resolved by consensus.ResultsOf 2325 papers identified, 267 full texts were screened and 17 studies finally included. Twelve methods were identified across papers. Instrumental variable methods were commonly considered, but many authors found them to be biased in some settings. Non-compliance was generally assumed to be all-or-nothing and only occurring in the intervention group, although some methods considered it as time-varying. Simulation studies commonly varied the level and type of non-compliance and factors such as effect size and strength of confounding. The quality of papers was generally good, although some lacked detail and justification. Therefore, their conclusions were deemed to be less reliable.ConclusionsIt is common for papers to consider instrumental variable methods but more studies are needed that consider G-methods and compare a wide range of methods in realistic scenarios. It is difficult to make conclusions about the best method to deal with non-compliance due to a limited body of evidence and the difficulty in combining results from independent simulation studies.Prospero registration numberCRD42022370910.

Project description:Randomizing patients among treatments with equal probabilities in clinical trials is the established method to obtain unbiased comparisons. In recent years, motivated by ethical considerations, many authors have proposed outcome adaptive randomization, wherein the randomization probabilities are unbalanced, based on interim data, to favor treatment arms having more favorable outcomes. While there has been substantial controversy regarding the merits and flaws of adaptive versus equal randomization, there has not yet been a systematic simulation study in the multi-arm setting. A simulation study was conducted to evaluate four different Bayesian adaptive randomization methods and compare them to equal randomization in five-arm clinical trials. All adaptive randomization methods included an initial burn-in with equal randomization and some combination of other modifications to avoid extreme randomization probabilities. Trials either with or without a control arm were evaluated, using designs that may terminate arms early for futility and select one or more experimental treatments at the end. The designs were evaluated under a range of scenarios and sample sizes. For trials with a control arm and maximum same size 250 or 500, several commonly used adaptive randomization methods have very low probabilities of correctly selecting a truly superior treatment. Of those studied, the only adaptive randomization method with desirable properties has a burn-in with equal randomization and thereafter randomization probabilities restricted to the interval 0.10-0.90. Compared to equal randomization, this method has a favorable sample size imbalance but lower probability of correctly selecting a superior treatment. In multi-arm trials, compared to equal randomization, several commonly used adaptive randomization methods give much lower probabilities of selecting superior treatments. Aside from randomization method, conducting a multi-arm trial without a control arm may lead to very low probabilities of selecting any superior treatments if differences between the treatment success probabilities are small.

Dataset Information

Outcome assessment by central adjudicators in randomised stroke trials: Simulation of differential and non-differential misclassification.

Publications

Outcome assessment by central adjudicators in randomised stroke trials: Simulation of differential and non-differential misclassification.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets