Cargando…

Outcomes Definitions and Statistical Tests in Oncology Studies: A Systematic Review of the Reporting Consistency

BACKGROUND: Quality of reporting for Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) in oncology was analyzed in several systematic reviews, but, in this setting, there is paucity of data for the outcomes definitions and consistency of reporting for statistical tests in RCTs and Observational Studies (OBS). The o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rivoirard, Romain, Duplay, Vianney, Oriol, Mathieu, Tinquaut, Fabien, Chauvin, Franck, Magne, Nicolas, Bourmaud, Aurelie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5055310/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27716793
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164275
_version_ 1782458746935443456
author Rivoirard, Romain
Duplay, Vianney
Oriol, Mathieu
Tinquaut, Fabien
Chauvin, Franck
Magne, Nicolas
Bourmaud, Aurelie
author_facet Rivoirard, Romain
Duplay, Vianney
Oriol, Mathieu
Tinquaut, Fabien
Chauvin, Franck
Magne, Nicolas
Bourmaud, Aurelie
author_sort Rivoirard, Romain
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Quality of reporting for Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) in oncology was analyzed in several systematic reviews, but, in this setting, there is paucity of data for the outcomes definitions and consistency of reporting for statistical tests in RCTs and Observational Studies (OBS). The objective of this review was to describe those two reporting aspects, for OBS and RCTs in oncology. METHODS: From a list of 19 medical journals, three were retained for analysis, after a random selection: British Medical Journal (BMJ), Annals of Oncology (AoO) and British Journal of Cancer (BJC). All original articles published between March 2009 and March 2014 were screened. Only studies whose main outcome was accompanied by a corresponding statistical test were included in the analysis. Studies based on censored data were excluded. Primary outcome was to assess quality of reporting for description of primary outcome measure in RCTs and of variables of interest in OBS. A logistic regression was performed to identify covariates of studies potentially associated with concordance of tests between Methods and Results parts. RESULTS: 826 studies were included in the review, and 698 were OBS. Variables were described in Methods section for all OBS studies and primary endpoint was clearly detailed in Methods section for 109 RCTs (85.2%). 295 OBS (42.2%) and 43 RCTs (33.6%) had perfect agreement for reported statistical test between Methods and Results parts. In multivariable analysis, variable "number of included patients in study" was associated with test consistency: aOR (adjusted Odds Ratio) for third group compared to first group was equal to: aOR Grp3 = 0.52 [0.31–0.89] (P value = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Variables in OBS and primary endpoint in RCTs are reported and described with a high frequency. However, statistical tests consistency between methods and Results sections of OBS is not always noted. Therefore, we encourage authors and peer reviewers to verify consistency of statistical tests in oncology studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5055310
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50553102016-10-27 Outcomes Definitions and Statistical Tests in Oncology Studies: A Systematic Review of the Reporting Consistency Rivoirard, Romain Duplay, Vianney Oriol, Mathieu Tinquaut, Fabien Chauvin, Franck Magne, Nicolas Bourmaud, Aurelie PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Quality of reporting for Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) in oncology was analyzed in several systematic reviews, but, in this setting, there is paucity of data for the outcomes definitions and consistency of reporting for statistical tests in RCTs and Observational Studies (OBS). The objective of this review was to describe those two reporting aspects, for OBS and RCTs in oncology. METHODS: From a list of 19 medical journals, three were retained for analysis, after a random selection: British Medical Journal (BMJ), Annals of Oncology (AoO) and British Journal of Cancer (BJC). All original articles published between March 2009 and March 2014 were screened. Only studies whose main outcome was accompanied by a corresponding statistical test were included in the analysis. Studies based on censored data were excluded. Primary outcome was to assess quality of reporting for description of primary outcome measure in RCTs and of variables of interest in OBS. A logistic regression was performed to identify covariates of studies potentially associated with concordance of tests between Methods and Results parts. RESULTS: 826 studies were included in the review, and 698 were OBS. Variables were described in Methods section for all OBS studies and primary endpoint was clearly detailed in Methods section for 109 RCTs (85.2%). 295 OBS (42.2%) and 43 RCTs (33.6%) had perfect agreement for reported statistical test between Methods and Results parts. In multivariable analysis, variable "number of included patients in study" was associated with test consistency: aOR (adjusted Odds Ratio) for third group compared to first group was equal to: aOR Grp3 = 0.52 [0.31–0.89] (P value = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Variables in OBS and primary endpoint in RCTs are reported and described with a high frequency. However, statistical tests consistency between methods and Results sections of OBS is not always noted. Therefore, we encourage authors and peer reviewers to verify consistency of statistical tests in oncology studies. Public Library of Science 2016-10-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5055310/ /pubmed/27716793 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164275 Text en © 2016 Rivoirard et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Rivoirard, Romain
Duplay, Vianney
Oriol, Mathieu
Tinquaut, Fabien
Chauvin, Franck
Magne, Nicolas
Bourmaud, Aurelie
Outcomes Definitions and Statistical Tests in Oncology Studies: A Systematic Review of the Reporting Consistency
title Outcomes Definitions and Statistical Tests in Oncology Studies: A Systematic Review of the Reporting Consistency
title_full Outcomes Definitions and Statistical Tests in Oncology Studies: A Systematic Review of the Reporting Consistency
title_fullStr Outcomes Definitions and Statistical Tests in Oncology Studies: A Systematic Review of the Reporting Consistency
title_full_unstemmed Outcomes Definitions and Statistical Tests in Oncology Studies: A Systematic Review of the Reporting Consistency
title_short Outcomes Definitions and Statistical Tests in Oncology Studies: A Systematic Review of the Reporting Consistency
title_sort outcomes definitions and statistical tests in oncology studies: a systematic review of the reporting consistency
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5055310/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27716793
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164275
work_keys_str_mv AT rivoirardromain outcomesdefinitionsandstatisticaltestsinoncologystudiesasystematicreviewofthereportingconsistency
AT duplayvianney outcomesdefinitionsandstatisticaltestsinoncologystudiesasystematicreviewofthereportingconsistency
AT oriolmathieu outcomesdefinitionsandstatisticaltestsinoncologystudiesasystematicreviewofthereportingconsistency
AT tinquautfabien outcomesdefinitionsandstatisticaltestsinoncologystudiesasystematicreviewofthereportingconsistency
AT chauvinfranck outcomesdefinitionsandstatisticaltestsinoncologystudiesasystematicreviewofthereportingconsistency
AT magnenicolas outcomesdefinitionsandstatisticaltestsinoncologystudiesasystematicreviewofthereportingconsistency
AT bourmaudaurelie outcomesdefinitionsandstatisticaltestsinoncologystudiesasystematicreviewofthereportingconsistency