期刊文献+

Statistical issues in randomised controlled trials: a narrative synthesis

Statistical issues in randomised controlled trials: a narrative synthesis
下载PDF
导出
摘要 Randomised controlled trials(RCTs) are gold standard in the evaluation of treatment efficacy in medical investigations, only if well designed and implemented. Till date, distorted views and misapplications of statistical procedures involved in RCTs are still in practice. Hence, clarification of concepts and acceptable practices related to certain statistical issues involved in the design, conduct and reporting of randomised controlled trials is needed. This narrative synthesis aimed at providing succinct but clear information on the concepts and practices of selected statistical issues in RCTs to inform correct applications. The use of tests of significance is no longer acceptable as means to compare baseline similarity between treatment groups and in determining which covariate(s) should be included in the model for adjustment. Distribution of baseline attributes simply presented in tabular form is however, rather preferred. Regarding covariate selection, such approach that makes use of information on the degree of correlation between the covariate(s) and the outcome variable is more in tandem with statistical principle(s) than that based on tests of significance. Stratification and minimisation are not alternatives to covariate adjusted analysis; in fact they establish the need for one. Intention-totreat is the preferred approach for the evaluation of primary outcome measures and researchers have responsibility to report whether or not the procedure was followed. A major use of results from subgroup analysis is to generate hypothesis for future clinical trials. Since RCTs are gold standard in the comparison of medical interventions, researchers cannot afford the practices of distorted allocation or statistical procedures in this all important experimental design method. Randomised controlled trials(RCTs) are gold standard in the evaluation of treatment efficacy in medical investigations, only if well designed and implemented. Till date, distorted views and misapplications of statistical procedures involved in RCTs are still in practice. Hence, clarification of concepts and acceptable practices related to certain statistical issues involved in the design, conduct and reporting of randomised controlled trials is needed. This narrative synthesis aimed at providing succinct but clear information on the concepts and practices of selected statistical issues in RCTs to inform correct applications. The use of tests of significance is no longer acceptable as means to compare baseline similarity between treatment groups and in determining which covariate(s) should be included in the model for adjustment. Distribution of baseline attributes simply presented in tabular form is however, rather preferred. Regarding covariate selection, such approach that makes use of information on the degree of correlation between the covariate(s) and the outcome variable is more in tandem with statistical principle(s) than that based on tests of significance. Stratification and minimisation are not alternatives to covariate adjusted analysis; in fact they establish the need for one. Intention-totreat is the preferred approach for the evaluation of primary outcome measures and researchers have responsibility to report whether or not the procedure was followed. A major use of results from subgroup analysis is to generate hypothesis for future clinical trials. Since RCTs are gold standard in the comparison of medical interventions, researchers cannot afford the practices of distorted allocation or statistical procedures in this all important experimental design method.
出处 《Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine》 SCIE CAS 2015年第5期354-359,共6页 亚太热带生物医学杂志(英文版)
基金 the Research Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, United Kingdom, for providing full funding through bursary and scholarship awards and an enabling environment for a successful completion of the PhD
关键词 BASELINE comparability COVARIATE selection for adjustment COVARIATE adjustment Intention-to-treat ANALYSIS SUBGROUP ANALYSIS Baseline comparability Covariate selection for adjustment Covariate adjustment Intention-to-treat analysis Subgroup analysis
  • 相关文献

参考文献20

  • 1P. M. Fayers,M. T. King.In reply to Berger “don’t test for baseline imbalances unless they are known to be present?”[J]. Quality of Life Research . 2009 (4)
  • 2Peter M Rothwell.Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation[J]. The Lancet . 2005 (9454)
  • 3Adrián V Hernández,Ewout W Steyerberg,J.Dik F Habbema.Covariate adjustment in randomized controlled trials with dichotomous outcomes increases statistical power and reduces sample size requirements[J]. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology . 2004 (5)
  • 4C.C. Wright,J. Sim.Intention-to-treat approach to data from randomized controlled trials: a sensitivity analysis[J]. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology . 2003 (9)
  • 5David Field,Diana Elbourne.The randomized controlled trial[J]. Current Paediatrics . 2003 (1)
  • 6Susan F Assmann,Stuart J Pocock,Laura E Enos,Linda E Kasten.Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials[J]. The Lancet . 2000 (9209)
  • 7Andrea B. Parker,C.David Naylor.Subgroups, treatment effects, and baseline risks: Some lessons from major cardiovascular trials[J]. American Heart Journal . 2000 (6)
  • 8Gillian M Raab,Simon Day,Jill Sales.How to Select Covariates to Include in the Analysis of a Clinical Trial[J]. Controlled Clinical Trials . 2000 (4)
  • 9P. Cotton.Randomization is not the (Only) Answer:A Plea for Structured Objective Evaluation of Endoscopic Therapy[J]. Endoscopy . 2000 (05)
  • 10Robin S. McLeod,James G. Wright,Michael J. Solomon,Xiaohan Hu,Beverly C. Walters,Al Lossing.Randomized controlled trials in surgery: Issues and problems[J]. Surgery . 1996 (5)

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部