Cargando…

Statistical methods for the analysis of adverse event data in randomised controlled trials: a scoping review and taxonomy

BACKGROUND: Statistical methods for the analysis of harm outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are rarely used, and there is a reliance on simple approaches to display information such as in frequency tables. We aimed to identify whether any statistical methods had been specifically develo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Phillips, Rachel, Sauzet, Odile, Cornelius, Victoria
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7708917/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33256641
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01167-9
_version_ 1783617640895348736
author Phillips, Rachel
Sauzet, Odile
Cornelius, Victoria
author_facet Phillips, Rachel
Sauzet, Odile
Cornelius, Victoria
author_sort Phillips, Rachel
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Statistical methods for the analysis of harm outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are rarely used, and there is a reliance on simple approaches to display information such as in frequency tables. We aimed to identify whether any statistical methods had been specifically developed to analyse prespecified secondary harm outcomes and non-specific emerging adverse events (AEs). METHODS: A scoping review was undertaken to identify articles that proposed original methods or the original application of existing methods for the analysis of AEs that aimed to detect potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in phase II-IV parallel controlled group trials. Methods where harm outcomes were the (co)-primary outcome were excluded. Information was extracted on methodological characteristics such as: whether the method required the event to be prespecified or could be used to screen emerging events; and whether it was applied to individual events or the overall AE profile. Each statistical method was appraised and a taxonomy was developed for classification. RESULTS: Forty-four eligible articles proposing 73 individual methods were included. A taxonomy was developed and articles were categorised as: visual summary methods (8 articles proposing 20 methods); hypothesis testing methods (11 articles proposing 16 methods); estimation methods (15 articles proposing 24 methods); or methods that provide decision-making probabilities (10 articles proposing 13 methods). Methods were further classified according to whether they required a prespecified event (9 articles proposing 12 methods), or could be applied to emerging events (35 articles proposing 61 methods); and if they were (group) sequential methods (10 articles proposing 12 methods) or methods to perform final/one analyses (34 articles proposing 61 methods). CONCLUSIONS: This review highlighted that a broad range of methods exist for AE analysis. Immediate implementation of some of these could lead to improved inference for AE data in RCTs. For example, a well-designed graphic can be an effective means to communicate complex AE data and methods appropriate for counts, time-to-event data and that avoid dichotomising continuous outcomes can improve efficiencies in analysis. Previous research has shown that adoption of such methods in the scientific press is limited and that strategies to support change are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=97442 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-020-01167-9.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7708917
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77089172020-12-02 Statistical methods for the analysis of adverse event data in randomised controlled trials: a scoping review and taxonomy Phillips, Rachel Sauzet, Odile Cornelius, Victoria BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Statistical methods for the analysis of harm outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are rarely used, and there is a reliance on simple approaches to display information such as in frequency tables. We aimed to identify whether any statistical methods had been specifically developed to analyse prespecified secondary harm outcomes and non-specific emerging adverse events (AEs). METHODS: A scoping review was undertaken to identify articles that proposed original methods or the original application of existing methods for the analysis of AEs that aimed to detect potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in phase II-IV parallel controlled group trials. Methods where harm outcomes were the (co)-primary outcome were excluded. Information was extracted on methodological characteristics such as: whether the method required the event to be prespecified or could be used to screen emerging events; and whether it was applied to individual events or the overall AE profile. Each statistical method was appraised and a taxonomy was developed for classification. RESULTS: Forty-four eligible articles proposing 73 individual methods were included. A taxonomy was developed and articles were categorised as: visual summary methods (8 articles proposing 20 methods); hypothesis testing methods (11 articles proposing 16 methods); estimation methods (15 articles proposing 24 methods); or methods that provide decision-making probabilities (10 articles proposing 13 methods). Methods were further classified according to whether they required a prespecified event (9 articles proposing 12 methods), or could be applied to emerging events (35 articles proposing 61 methods); and if they were (group) sequential methods (10 articles proposing 12 methods) or methods to perform final/one analyses (34 articles proposing 61 methods). CONCLUSIONS: This review highlighted that a broad range of methods exist for AE analysis. Immediate implementation of some of these could lead to improved inference for AE data in RCTs. For example, a well-designed graphic can be an effective means to communicate complex AE data and methods appropriate for counts, time-to-event data and that avoid dichotomising continuous outcomes can improve efficiencies in analysis. Previous research has shown that adoption of such methods in the scientific press is limited and that strategies to support change are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=97442 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-020-01167-9. BioMed Central 2020-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7708917/ /pubmed/33256641 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01167-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Phillips, Rachel
Sauzet, Odile
Cornelius, Victoria
Statistical methods for the analysis of adverse event data in randomised controlled trials: a scoping review and taxonomy
title Statistical methods for the analysis of adverse event data in randomised controlled trials: a scoping review and taxonomy
title_full Statistical methods for the analysis of adverse event data in randomised controlled trials: a scoping review and taxonomy
title_fullStr Statistical methods for the analysis of adverse event data in randomised controlled trials: a scoping review and taxonomy
title_full_unstemmed Statistical methods for the analysis of adverse event data in randomised controlled trials: a scoping review and taxonomy
title_short Statistical methods for the analysis of adverse event data in randomised controlled trials: a scoping review and taxonomy
title_sort statistical methods for the analysis of adverse event data in randomised controlled trials: a scoping review and taxonomy
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7708917/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33256641
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01167-9
work_keys_str_mv AT phillipsrachel statisticalmethodsfortheanalysisofadverseeventdatainrandomisedcontrolledtrialsascopingreviewandtaxonomy
AT sauzetodile statisticalmethodsfortheanalysisofadverseeventdatainrandomisedcontrolledtrialsascopingreviewandtaxonomy
AT corneliusvictoria statisticalmethodsfortheanalysisofadverseeventdatainrandomisedcontrolledtrialsascopingreviewandtaxonomy