Cargando…

Accounting for center in the Early External Cephalic Version trials: an empirical comparison of statistical methods to adjust for center in a multicenter trial with binary outcomes

BACKGROUND: Clustering of outcomes at centers involved in multicenter trials is a type of center effect. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement recommends that multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should account for center effects in their analysis, however most do not....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Reitsma, Angela, Chu, Rong, Thorpe, Julia, McDonald, Sarah, Thabane, Lehana, Hutton, Eileen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4192344/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25257928
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-377
_version_ 1782338763989450752
author Reitsma, Angela
Chu, Rong
Thorpe, Julia
McDonald, Sarah
Thabane, Lehana
Hutton, Eileen
author_facet Reitsma, Angela
Chu, Rong
Thorpe, Julia
McDonald, Sarah
Thabane, Lehana
Hutton, Eileen
author_sort Reitsma, Angela
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Clustering of outcomes at centers involved in multicenter trials is a type of center effect. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement recommends that multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should account for center effects in their analysis, however most do not. The Early External Cephalic Version (EECV) trials published in 2003 and 2011 stratified by center at randomization, but did not account for center in the analyses, and due to the nature of the intervention and number of centers, may have been prone to center effects. Using data from the EECV trials, we undertook an empirical study to compare various statistical approaches to account for center effect while estimating the impact of external cephalic version timing (early or delayed) on the outcomes of cesarean section, preterm birth, and non-cephalic presentation at the time of birth. METHODS: The data from the EECV pilot trial and the EECV2 trial were merged into one dataset. Fisher’s exact method was used to test the overall effect of external cephalic version timing unadjusted for center effects. Seven statistical models that accounted for center effects were applied to the data. The models included: i) the Mantel-Haenszel test, ii) logistic regression with fixed center effect and fixed treatment effect, iii) center-size weighted and iv) un-weighted logistic regression with fixed center effect and fixed treatment-by-center interaction, iv) logistic regression with random center effect and fixed treatment effect, v) logistic regression with random center effect and random treatment-by-center interaction, and vi) generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: For each of the three outcomes of interest approaches to account for center effect did not alter the overall findings of the trial. The results were similar for the majority of the methods used to adjust for center, illustrating the robustness of the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Despite literature that suggests center effect can change the estimate of effect in multicenter trials, this empirical study does not show a difference in the outcomes of the EECV trials when accounting for center effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The EECV2 trial was registered on 30 July 30 2005 with Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN%2056498577.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4192344
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41923442014-10-11 Accounting for center in the Early External Cephalic Version trials: an empirical comparison of statistical methods to adjust for center in a multicenter trial with binary outcomes Reitsma, Angela Chu, Rong Thorpe, Julia McDonald, Sarah Thabane, Lehana Hutton, Eileen Trials Research BACKGROUND: Clustering of outcomes at centers involved in multicenter trials is a type of center effect. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement recommends that multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should account for center effects in their analysis, however most do not. The Early External Cephalic Version (EECV) trials published in 2003 and 2011 stratified by center at randomization, but did not account for center in the analyses, and due to the nature of the intervention and number of centers, may have been prone to center effects. Using data from the EECV trials, we undertook an empirical study to compare various statistical approaches to account for center effect while estimating the impact of external cephalic version timing (early or delayed) on the outcomes of cesarean section, preterm birth, and non-cephalic presentation at the time of birth. METHODS: The data from the EECV pilot trial and the EECV2 trial were merged into one dataset. Fisher’s exact method was used to test the overall effect of external cephalic version timing unadjusted for center effects. Seven statistical models that accounted for center effects were applied to the data. The models included: i) the Mantel-Haenszel test, ii) logistic regression with fixed center effect and fixed treatment effect, iii) center-size weighted and iv) un-weighted logistic regression with fixed center effect and fixed treatment-by-center interaction, iv) logistic regression with random center effect and fixed treatment effect, v) logistic regression with random center effect and random treatment-by-center interaction, and vi) generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: For each of the three outcomes of interest approaches to account for center effect did not alter the overall findings of the trial. The results were similar for the majority of the methods used to adjust for center, illustrating the robustness of the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Despite literature that suggests center effect can change the estimate of effect in multicenter trials, this empirical study does not show a difference in the outcomes of the EECV trials when accounting for center effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The EECV2 trial was registered on 30 July 30 2005 with Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN%2056498577. BioMed Central 2014-09-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4192344/ /pubmed/25257928 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-377 Text en © Reitsma et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Reitsma, Angela
Chu, Rong
Thorpe, Julia
McDonald, Sarah
Thabane, Lehana
Hutton, Eileen
Accounting for center in the Early External Cephalic Version trials: an empirical comparison of statistical methods to adjust for center in a multicenter trial with binary outcomes
title Accounting for center in the Early External Cephalic Version trials: an empirical comparison of statistical methods to adjust for center in a multicenter trial with binary outcomes
title_full Accounting for center in the Early External Cephalic Version trials: an empirical comparison of statistical methods to adjust for center in a multicenter trial with binary outcomes
title_fullStr Accounting for center in the Early External Cephalic Version trials: an empirical comparison of statistical methods to adjust for center in a multicenter trial with binary outcomes
title_full_unstemmed Accounting for center in the Early External Cephalic Version trials: an empirical comparison of statistical methods to adjust for center in a multicenter trial with binary outcomes
title_short Accounting for center in the Early External Cephalic Version trials: an empirical comparison of statistical methods to adjust for center in a multicenter trial with binary outcomes
title_sort accounting for center in the early external cephalic version trials: an empirical comparison of statistical methods to adjust for center in a multicenter trial with binary outcomes
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4192344/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25257928
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-377
work_keys_str_mv AT reitsmaangela accountingforcenterintheearlyexternalcephalicversiontrialsanempiricalcomparisonofstatisticalmethodstoadjustforcenterinamulticentertrialwithbinaryoutcomes
AT churong accountingforcenterintheearlyexternalcephalicversiontrialsanempiricalcomparisonofstatisticalmethodstoadjustforcenterinamulticentertrialwithbinaryoutcomes
AT thorpejulia accountingforcenterintheearlyexternalcephalicversiontrialsanempiricalcomparisonofstatisticalmethodstoadjustforcenterinamulticentertrialwithbinaryoutcomes
AT mcdonaldsarah accountingforcenterintheearlyexternalcephalicversiontrialsanempiricalcomparisonofstatisticalmethodstoadjustforcenterinamulticentertrialwithbinaryoutcomes
AT thabanelehana accountingforcenterintheearlyexternalcephalicversiontrialsanempiricalcomparisonofstatisticalmethodstoadjustforcenterinamulticentertrialwithbinaryoutcomes
AT huttoneileen accountingforcenterintheearlyexternalcephalicversiontrialsanempiricalcomparisonofstatisticalmethodstoadjustforcenterinamulticentertrialwithbinaryoutcomes