Non-compliance with randomised allocation and missing outcome data in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions: A systematic review

被引：10
作者：
Adewuyi T.E. [1 ]
MacLennan G. [1 ]
Cook J.A. [1 ]
机构：
[1] Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen
来源：
BMC Research Notes | / 8卷 / 1期
基金：
英国科研创新办公室; 英国医学研究理事会;
关键词：
Intention-to-treat; Missing data; Non-compliance; Surgical trials;
D O I：
10.1186/s13104-015-1364-9
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
Background: Randomised controlled trials are widely acknowledged as the gold standard in medical research although their validity can be undermined by non-compliance with the randomly allocated treatment and missing data. Due to the nature of the intervention, surgical trials face particular threat to compliance and data collection. For example, ineligibility for the intervention may only become apparent once the operation has commenced. It is unclear how such cases are reported and handled. Objective: The objective was to assess non-compliance and missing data in reports of trials of surgical interventions. Methods: Searches for reports of trials involving at least one surgical procedure and published in 2010 were carried out in the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE®). Data on missing data, non-compliance and methods of handling missing data were extracted from full texts. Descriptive data analyses were carried out on the data. Results: Forty-five (55 %) studies reported non-compliance with treatment allocation and 52 (63 %) reported primary outcome missing data. The median levels of non-compliance and missing data were 2 % [IQR (0, 5), range (0-29)] and 6 % [IQR (0, 15), range (0-57)], respectively. Fifty-two (63 %) studies analysed as randomised, 17 (21 %) analysed per protocol and 3 (4 %) analysed as treated. Complete case analysis was the most common method used to deal with missing data, 35/52 (67 %). Conclusions: The reporting of non-compliance to allocation and the handling of missing data were typically suboptimal. There is still room for improvement on the use of the CONSORT statement particularly in accounting for study participants. Transparency in reporting would facilitate evidence synthesis. © 2015 Adewuyi et al.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 106 条
  • [1] Stolberg H.O., Norman G., Trop I., Fundamentals of clinical research for radiologist: Randomised controlled trials, AJR, 183, pp. 1539-1544, (2004)
  • [2] Harbour R., Miller J., A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines, BMJ, 323, 7308, pp. 334-336, (2001)
  • [3] White I., Uses and limitations of randomization-based efficacy estimators, Stat Methods Med Res, 14, pp. 327-347, (2005)
  • [4] White I., Horton N., Carpenter J., Pocock S., Strategy for intention to treat analysis in randomised trials with missing outcome data, BMJ, 342, (2011)
  • [5] Ergina P.L., Cook J.A., Blazeby J.M., Boutron I., Clavien P.A., Reeves B.C., Et al., Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation, Lancet, 374, pp. 1097-1104, (2009)
  • [6] Cook J.A., The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials, Trials, 10, (2009)
  • [7] Randomized trial of reamed and unreamed intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures, J Bone Joint Surg Am, 90, pp. 2567-2578, (2008)
  • [8] Wente M., Seiler C., Uhl W., Bchler M., Perspectives of evidence-based surgery, Dig Surg., 20, 4, pp. 263-269, (2003)
  • [9] Snapinn S.M., Jiang Q., Iglewicz B., Informative non-compliance in endpoint trials, Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med., 5, 1, (2004)
  • [10] Lachin J.M., Statistical considerations in the intent-to-treat principle, Control Clin Trials, 21, 3, pp. 167-189, (2000)
12345678910