Defining non-inferiority margins in randomised controlled surgical trials: a protocol for a systematic review

被引:0
|
作者
Kuemmerli, Christoph [1 ,2 ]
Gallagher, Iain J. [3 ]
Skipworth, Richard [4 ]
Laird, Barry [5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Edinburgh, Med Sch, Mol Genet & Populat Hlth Sci, Edinburgh, Scotland
[2] Univ Hosp Basel, Univ Digest Hlth Care Ctr, Dept Surg, Clarunis, Basel, Switzerland
[3] Edinburgh Napier Univ, Ctr Biomed & Global Hlth, Edinburgh, Scotland
[4] Royal Infirm Edinburgh NHS Trust, Dept Gen Surg, Edinburgh, Scotland
[5] Edinburgh Canc Res Ctr, European Palliat Care Res Ctr, Edinburgh, Scotland
来源
BMJ OPEN | 2024年 / 14卷 / 08期
关键词
randomized controlled trial; systematic review; research design; surgery; PROPORTIONS;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089587
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background The reporting of randomised controlled non-inferiority (NI) drug trials is poor with less than 50% of published trials reporting a justification of the NI margin. This is despite the introduction of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension on reporting of NI and equivalence in randomised trials. It is critical to set the appropriate NI margin as this choice dictates the conclusions of the trial. Methods to estimate the margin are heterogeneous but generally based on clinical judgement and statistical reasoning, and hence tailored to each clinical situation. Yet an appraisal of NI in clinical trials has not been undertaken. Therefore the aim of this systematic review is to assess the reporting and methodological quality of defining the NI margin. Surgical NI trials have been chosen as our prototype to assess this.Methods We will conduct a systematic review of published randomised controlled trials in abdominal surgery that use an NI design. Key eligibility criteria will be: surgical intervention in at least one trial arm; adult patients and a sample size of 100 or more. Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched from inception until the date of the search. Identified studies will be assessed for reporting according to the CONSORT recommendations. The outcomes are the description of the methods for defining the NI margin, and the robustness of the NI margin estimation. The latter will be based on simulations using alternative assumptions for model parameters. The results of the simulation will be compared with the trial authors' conclusions.Anticipated results The review will describe and appraise the design and reporting of surgical NI trials including shortcomings thereof and allow a comparison with pharmaceutical trials. These findings will inform researchers on the appropriate design and pitfalls when conducting surgical randomised controlled trials with an NI design and promote thorough and standardised reporting of study findings.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required and any changes to the protocol will be communicated via the registration platform. The final manuscript will be submitted to a journal for publication and the findings will be disseminated through conference presentations to inform researchers and the public.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 4
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Non-inferiority trials
    Elie, Caroline
    Touze, Emmanuel
    SANG THROMBOSE VAISSEAUX, 2012, 24 (02): : 93 - 99
  • [2] Methodological and reporting quality of non-inferiority randomized controlled trials comparing antifungal therapies: a systematic review
    Komorowski, Adam S.
    Bai, Anthony D.
    Cvetkovic, Anna
    Mourad, Omar
    Lo, Carson K. L.
    Li, Xena X.
    Mokashi, Vaibhav
    Findlater, Aidan
    Duncan, D. Brody
    Fuller, Charlotte
    Yamamura, Deborah
    Mertz, Dominik
    CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION, 2022, 28 (05) : 640 - 648
  • [3] Intention-to-treat analysis may be more conservative than per protocol analysis in antibiotic non-inferiority trials: a systematic review
    Bai, Anthony D.
    Komorowski, Adam S.
    Lo, Carson K. L.
    Tandon, Pranav
    Li, Xena X.
    Mokashi, Vaibhav
    Cvetkovic, Anna
    Findlater, Aidan
    Liang, Laurel
    Tomlinson, George
    Loeb, Mark
    Mertz, Dominik
    BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2021, 21 (01)
  • [4] Feasibility of surgical randomised controlled trials with a placebo arm: a systematic review
    Wartolowska, Karolina
    Collins, Gary S.
    Hopewell, Sally
    Judge, Andrew
    Dean, Benjamin J. F.
    Rombach, Ines
    Beard, David J.
    Carr, Andrew J.
    BMJ OPEN, 2016, 6 (03):
  • [5] Reporting quality of surgical randomised controlled trials in head and neck cancer: a systematic review
    Canagarajah, Netanya Aarabi
    Porter, George James
    Mitra, Kurchi
    Chu, Timothy Shun Man
    EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY, 2021, 278 (11) : 4125 - 4133
  • [6] Intention-to-treat analysis may be more conservative than per protocol analysis in antibiotic non-inferiority trials: a systematic review
    Anthony D. Bai
    Adam S. Komorowski
    Carson K. L. Lo
    Pranav Tandon
    Xena X. Li
    Vaibhav Mokashi
    Anna Cvetkovic
    Aidan Findlater
    Laurel Liang
    George Tomlinson
    Mark Loeb
    Dominik Mertz
    BMC Medical Research Methodology, 21
  • [7] Protocol for a systematic review of reporting standards of anaesthetic interventions in randomised controlled trials
    Elliott, Lucy
    Coulman, Karen
    Blencowe, Natalie S.
    Qureshi, Mahim
    Watson, Sethina
    Mouton, Ronelle
    Hinchliffe, Robert J.
    BMJ OPEN, 2020, 10 (01):
  • [8] Surgical treatments of cartilage defects of the knee: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials
    Devitt, Brian M.
    Bell, Stuart W.
    Webster, Kate E.
    Feller, Julian A.
    Whitehead, Tim S.
    KNEE, 2017, 24 (03) : 508 - 517
  • [9] ¿Clinical trials of superiority, non-inferiority or equivalence?
    Manterola, Carlos
    Hernandez-Leal, Maria Jose
    Otzen, Tamara
    Holguin, Juan Pablo
    Salgado, Carla
    Grande, Luis
    REVISTA CHILENA DE INFECTOLOGIA, 2024, 41 (01): : 157 - 164
  • [10] Full endoscopic versus open discectomy for sciatica: randomised controlled non-inferiority trial
    Gadjradj, Pravesh S.
    Rubinstein, Sidney M.
    Peul, Wilco C.
    Depauw, Paul R.
    Vleggeert-Lankamp, Carmen L.
    Seiger, Ankie
    Susante, Job L. C.
    de Boer, Michiel R.
    van Tulder, Maurits W.
    Harhangi, Biswadjiet S.
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2022, 376