Cargando…
Ideal vs. real: a systematic review on handling covariates in randomized controlled trials
BACKGROUND: In theory, efficient design of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involves randomization algorithms that control baseline variable imbalance efficiently, and corresponding analysis involves pre-specified adjustment for baseline covariates. This review sought to explore techniques for ha...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6610785/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31269898 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0787-8 |
_version_ | 1783432565253734400 |
---|---|
author | Ciolino, Jody D. Palac, Hannah L. Yang, Amy Vaca, Mireya Belli, Hayley M. |
author_facet | Ciolino, Jody D. Palac, Hannah L. Yang, Amy Vaca, Mireya Belli, Hayley M. |
author_sort | Ciolino, Jody D. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: In theory, efficient design of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involves randomization algorithms that control baseline variable imbalance efficiently, and corresponding analysis involves pre-specified adjustment for baseline covariates. This review sought to explore techniques for handling potentially influential baseline variables in both the design and analysis phase of RCTs. METHODS: We searched PubMed for articles indexed “randomized controlled trial”, published in the NEJM, JAMA, BMJ, or Lancet for two time periods: 2009 and 2014 (before and after updated CONSORT guidelines). Upon screening (343), 298 articles underwent full review and data abstraction. RESULTS: Typical articles reported on superiority (86%), multicenter (92%), two-armed (79%) trials; 81% of trials involved covariates in the allocation and 84% presented adjusted analysis results. The majority reported a stratified block method (69%) of allocation, and of the trials reporting adjusted analyses, 91% were pre-specified. Trials published in 2014 were more likely to report adjusted analyses (87% vs. 79%, p = 0.0100) and more likely to pre-specify adjustment in analyses (95% vs. 85%, p = 0.0045). Studies initiated in later years (2010 or later) were less likely to use an adaptive method of randomization (p = 0.0066; 7% of those beginning in 2010 or later vs. 31% of those starting before 2000) but more likely to report a pre-specified adjusted analysis (p = 0.0029; 97% for those initiated in 2010 or later vs. 69% of those started before 2000). CONCLUSION: While optimal reporting procedures and pre-specification of adjusted analyses for RCTs tend to be progressively more prevalent over time, we see the opposite effect on reported use of covariate-adaptive randomization methods. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0787-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6610785 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66107852019-07-16 Ideal vs. real: a systematic review on handling covariates in randomized controlled trials Ciolino, Jody D. Palac, Hannah L. Yang, Amy Vaca, Mireya Belli, Hayley M. BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: In theory, efficient design of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involves randomization algorithms that control baseline variable imbalance efficiently, and corresponding analysis involves pre-specified adjustment for baseline covariates. This review sought to explore techniques for handling potentially influential baseline variables in both the design and analysis phase of RCTs. METHODS: We searched PubMed for articles indexed “randomized controlled trial”, published in the NEJM, JAMA, BMJ, or Lancet for two time periods: 2009 and 2014 (before and after updated CONSORT guidelines). Upon screening (343), 298 articles underwent full review and data abstraction. RESULTS: Typical articles reported on superiority (86%), multicenter (92%), two-armed (79%) trials; 81% of trials involved covariates in the allocation and 84% presented adjusted analysis results. The majority reported a stratified block method (69%) of allocation, and of the trials reporting adjusted analyses, 91% were pre-specified. Trials published in 2014 were more likely to report adjusted analyses (87% vs. 79%, p = 0.0100) and more likely to pre-specify adjustment in analyses (95% vs. 85%, p = 0.0045). Studies initiated in later years (2010 or later) were less likely to use an adaptive method of randomization (p = 0.0066; 7% of those beginning in 2010 or later vs. 31% of those starting before 2000) but more likely to report a pre-specified adjusted analysis (p = 0.0029; 97% for those initiated in 2010 or later vs. 69% of those started before 2000). CONCLUSION: While optimal reporting procedures and pre-specification of adjusted analyses for RCTs tend to be progressively more prevalent over time, we see the opposite effect on reported use of covariate-adaptive randomization methods. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0787-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-07-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6610785/ /pubmed/31269898 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0787-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 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 | Research Article Ciolino, Jody D. Palac, Hannah L. Yang, Amy Vaca, Mireya Belli, Hayley M. Ideal vs. real: a systematic review on handling covariates in randomized controlled trials |
title | Ideal vs. real: a systematic review on handling covariates in randomized controlled trials |
title_full | Ideal vs. real: a systematic review on handling covariates in randomized controlled trials |
title_fullStr | Ideal vs. real: a systematic review on handling covariates in randomized controlled trials |
title_full_unstemmed | Ideal vs. real: a systematic review on handling covariates in randomized controlled trials |
title_short | Ideal vs. real: a systematic review on handling covariates in randomized controlled trials |
title_sort | ideal vs. real: a systematic review on handling covariates in randomized controlled trials |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6610785/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31269898 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0787-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ciolinojodyd idealvsrealasystematicreviewonhandlingcovariatesinrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT palachannahl idealvsrealasystematicreviewonhandlingcovariatesinrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT yangamy idealvsrealasystematicreviewonhandlingcovariatesinrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT vacamireya idealvsrealasystematicreviewonhandlingcovariatesinrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT bellihayleym idealvsrealasystematicreviewonhandlingcovariatesinrandomizedcontrolledtrials |