Objective To investigate the planning of subgroup analyses in protocols of randomised controlled trials and the agreement with corresponding full journal publications. Design Cohort of protocols of randomised controlled trial and subsequent full journal publications. Setting Six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. Data sources 894 protocols of randomised controlled trial involving patients approved by participating research ethics committees between 2000 and 2003 and 515 subsequent full journal publications. Results Of 894 protocols of randomised controlled trials, 252 (28.2%) included one or more planned subgroup analyses. Of those, 17 (6.7%) provided a clear hypothesis for at least one subgroup analysis, 10 (4.0%) anticipated the direction of a subgroup effect, and 87 (34.5%) planned a statistical test for interaction. Industry sponsored trials more often planned subgroup analyses compared with investigator sponsored trials (195/551 (35.4%) v 57/343 (16.6%), P<0.001). Of 515 identified journal publications, 246 (47.8%) reported at least one subgroup analysis. In 81 (32.9%) of the 246 publications reporting subgroup analyses, authors stated that subgroup analyses were prespecified, but this was not supported by 28 (34.6%) corresponding protocols. In 86 publications, authors claimed a subgroup effect, but only 36 (41.9%) corresponding protocols reported a planned subgroup analysis. Conclusions Subgroup analyses are insufficiently described in the protocols of randomised controlled trials submitted to research ethics committees, and investigators rarely specify the anticipated direction of subgroup effects. More than one third of statements in publications of randomised controlled trials about subgroup prespecification had no documentation in the corresponding protocols. Definitive judgments regarding credibility of claimed subgroup effects are not possible without access to protocols and analysis plans of randomised controlled trials.

Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: cohort study on trial protocols and journal publications / B. Kasenda, S. Schandelmaier, X. Sun, E. von Elm, J. You, A. Blümle, Y. Tomonaga, R. Saccilotto, A. Amstutz, T. Bengough, J.J. Meerpohl, M. Stegert, K.K. Olu, K.A.O. Tikkinen, I. Neumann, A. Carrasco-Labra, M. Faulhaber, S.M. Mulla, D. Mertz, E.A. Akl, D. Bassler, J.W. Busse, I. Ferreira-González, F. Lamontagne, A. Nordmann, V. Gloy, H. Raatz, L. Moja, R. Rosenthal, S. Ebrahim, P.O. Vandvik, B.C. Johnston, M.A. Walter, B. Burnand, M. Schwenkglenks, L.G. Hemkens, H.C. Bucher, G.H. Guyatt, M. Briel. - In: BMJ BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL. - ISSN 1019-8350. - 349(2014 Jul 16), pp. g4539.1-g4539.11. [10.1136/bmj.g4539]

Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: cohort study on trial protocols and journal publications

L. Moja;
2014

Abstract

Objective To investigate the planning of subgroup analyses in protocols of randomised controlled trials and the agreement with corresponding full journal publications. Design Cohort of protocols of randomised controlled trial and subsequent full journal publications. Setting Six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. Data sources 894 protocols of randomised controlled trial involving patients approved by participating research ethics committees between 2000 and 2003 and 515 subsequent full journal publications. Results Of 894 protocols of randomised controlled trials, 252 (28.2%) included one or more planned subgroup analyses. Of those, 17 (6.7%) provided a clear hypothesis for at least one subgroup analysis, 10 (4.0%) anticipated the direction of a subgroup effect, and 87 (34.5%) planned a statistical test for interaction. Industry sponsored trials more often planned subgroup analyses compared with investigator sponsored trials (195/551 (35.4%) v 57/343 (16.6%), P<0.001). Of 515 identified journal publications, 246 (47.8%) reported at least one subgroup analysis. In 81 (32.9%) of the 246 publications reporting subgroup analyses, authors stated that subgroup analyses were prespecified, but this was not supported by 28 (34.6%) corresponding protocols. In 86 publications, authors claimed a subgroup effect, but only 36 (41.9%) corresponding protocols reported a planned subgroup analysis. Conclusions Subgroup analyses are insufficiently described in the protocols of randomised controlled trials submitted to research ethics committees, and investigators rarely specify the anticipated direction of subgroup effects. More than one third of statements in publications of randomised controlled trials about subgroup prespecification had no documentation in the corresponding protocols. Definitive judgments regarding credibility of claimed subgroup effects are not possible without access to protocols and analysis plans of randomised controlled trials.
Canada; Cohort Studies; Data Collection; Germany; Humans; Publishing; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Switzerland; Clinical Protocols; Research Design
Settore MED/42 - Igiene Generale e Applicata
Settore MED/01 - Statistica Medica
16-lug-2014
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Subgroup analyses RCTs cohort study trial protocols journal publications BMJ.pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 1.47 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.47 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/273220
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 35
  • Scopus 71
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 66
social impact