Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Adewuyi, Temitope E., MacLennan, Graeme, Cook, Jonathan A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4558937/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26336099
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1364-9
_version_ 1782388692038451200
author Adewuyi, Temitope E.
MacLennan, Graeme
Cook, Jonathan A.
author_facet Adewuyi, Temitope E.
MacLennan, Graeme
Cook, Jonathan A.
author_sort Adewuyi, Temitope E.
collection PubMed
description 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13104-015-1364-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4558937
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45589372015-09-04 Non-compliance with randomised allocation and missing outcome data in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions: a systematic review Adewuyi, Temitope E. MacLennan, Graeme Cook, Jonathan A. BMC Res Notes Regular Article 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13104-015-1364-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-09-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4558937/ /pubmed/26336099 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1364-9 Text en © Adewuyi et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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 Regular Article
Adewuyi, Temitope E.
MacLennan, Graeme
Cook, Jonathan A.
Non-compliance with randomised allocation and missing outcome data in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions: a systematic review
title Non-compliance with randomised allocation and missing outcome data in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions: a systematic review
title_full Non-compliance with randomised allocation and missing outcome data in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions: a systematic review
title_fullStr Non-compliance with randomised allocation and missing outcome data in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Non-compliance with randomised allocation and missing outcome data in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions: a systematic review
title_short Non-compliance with randomised allocation and missing outcome data in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions: a systematic review
title_sort non-compliance with randomised allocation and missing outcome data in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions: a systematic review
topic Regular Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4558937/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26336099
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1364-9
work_keys_str_mv AT adewuyitemitopee noncompliancewithrandomisedallocationandmissingoutcomedatainrandomisedcontrolledtrialsevaluatingsurgicalinterventionsasystematicreview
AT maclennangraeme noncompliancewithrandomisedallocationandmissingoutcomedatainrandomisedcontrolledtrialsevaluatingsurgicalinterventionsasystematicreview
AT cookjonathana noncompliancewithrandomisedallocationandmissingoutcomedatainrandomisedcontrolledtrialsevaluatingsurgicalinterventionsasystematicreview