Evaluating multiplicity reporting in analgesic clinical trials: An analytical review.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY European Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2024-11-25 DOI:10.1002/ejp.4756
Maaz S Khan, Lori F Zarmer, Jie Liang, Sepideh Saroukhani, Anthony R Lucas, Colin J L McCartney, Rabail Chaudhry
{"title":"Evaluating multiplicity reporting in analgesic clinical trials: An analytical review.","authors":"Maaz S Khan, Lori F Zarmer, Jie Liang, Sepideh Saroukhani, Anthony R Lucas, Colin J L McCartney, Rabail Chaudhry","doi":"10.1002/ejp.4756","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Analgesia trials often demands multiple comparisons to assess various treatment arms, outcomes, or repeated assessments. These multiple comparisons risk inflating the false positive rate. Multiplicity correction in recent analgesic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remains unclear despite statistical method advancements and regulatory guidelines. Our study aimed to identify reporting inadequacies in multiple analysis adjustments and explanations to understand these deficiencies.</p><p><strong>Databases and data treatment: </strong>This review analysed RCTs from the European Journal of Pain, the Journal of Pain, and PAIN, published between January 2018 and December 2022. We included randomized, double-blind trials focusing on pain outcomes. Data extraction, managed by three researchers using predefined criteria, included trial characteristics, multiplicity presence, and correction methods. Descriptive statistical analyses included Fisher's exact, and Holm method for multiple comparisons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 112 articles, 48 pre-specified a primary analysis plan. Multiple analyses were observed in 65 articles, with 60% adjusting for all comparisons, primarily using the Bonferroni method. Compared with previous studies, no significant changes in multiplicity correction practices were noted when stratified by trial type, size, and sponsor.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study reveals a persistent reliance on multiple comparisons in analgesic clinical trials without a corresponding increase in multiplicity corrections emphasizing a need for enhanced reporting and implementation of statistical adjustments. We acknowledge limitations in categorizing studies, the use of a surrogate for the trial stage, and sourcing data from journal webpages rather than a database.</p><p><strong>Significance statement: </strong>This study flags inadequate reporting on multiplicity correction in analgesic trials, stressing the risk of false positives and the urgent need for enhanced reporting to boost reproducibility.</p>","PeriodicalId":12021,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Pain","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.4756","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Analgesia trials often demands multiple comparisons to assess various treatment arms, outcomes, or repeated assessments. These multiple comparisons risk inflating the false positive rate. Multiplicity correction in recent analgesic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remains unclear despite statistical method advancements and regulatory guidelines. Our study aimed to identify reporting inadequacies in multiple analysis adjustments and explanations to understand these deficiencies.

Databases and data treatment: This review analysed RCTs from the European Journal of Pain, the Journal of Pain, and PAIN, published between January 2018 and December 2022. We included randomized, double-blind trials focusing on pain outcomes. Data extraction, managed by three researchers using predefined criteria, included trial characteristics, multiplicity presence, and correction methods. Descriptive statistical analyses included Fisher's exact, and Holm method for multiple comparisons.

Results: Out of 112 articles, 48 pre-specified a primary analysis plan. Multiple analyses were observed in 65 articles, with 60% adjusting for all comparisons, primarily using the Bonferroni method. Compared with previous studies, no significant changes in multiplicity correction practices were noted when stratified by trial type, size, and sponsor.

Conclusions: The study reveals a persistent reliance on multiple comparisons in analgesic clinical trials without a corresponding increase in multiplicity corrections emphasizing a need for enhanced reporting and implementation of statistical adjustments. We acknowledge limitations in categorizing studies, the use of a surrogate for the trial stage, and sourcing data from journal webpages rather than a database.

Significance statement: This study flags inadequate reporting on multiplicity correction in analgesic trials, stressing the risk of false positives and the urgent need for enhanced reporting to boost reproducibility.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估镇痛临床试验中的多重性报告:分析综述。
背景和目的:镇痛试验通常要求进行多重比较,以评估各种治疗臂、结果或重复评估。这些多重比较有可能提高假阳性率。尽管统计方法和监管指南不断进步,但近期镇痛随机对照试验(RCT)中的多重性校正仍不明确。我们的研究旨在确定多重分析调整中的报告不足之处,并解释如何理解这些不足之处:本综述分析了2018年1月至2022年12月期间发表在《欧洲疼痛杂志》(European Journal of Pain)、《疼痛杂志》(Journal of Pain)和《疼痛杂志》(PAIN)上的RCT。我们纳入了以疼痛结果为重点的随机双盲试验。数据提取由三位研究人员使用预定义标准进行管理,包括试验特征、多重性存在和校正方法。描述性统计分析包括费雪精确法和用于多重比较的霍尔姆法:在 112 篇文章中,有 48 篇预先指定了主要分析计划。65篇文章进行了多重分析,其中60%的文章对所有比较进行了调整,主要采用Bonferroni方法。与之前的研究相比,根据试验类型、规模和赞助商进行分层后,多重性校正的做法没有明显变化:本研究揭示了镇痛临床试验中对多重比较的持续依赖,而多重性校正却没有相应增加,这强调了加强报告和实施统计调整的必要性。我们承认在对研究进行分类、使用试验阶段的替代物以及从期刊网页而非数据库中获取数据方面存在局限性:本研究揭示了镇痛试验中多重性校正报告的不足,强调了假阳性的风险以及加强报告以提高可重复性的迫切需要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Pain
European Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
163
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: European Journal of Pain (EJP) publishes clinical and basic science research papers relevant to all aspects of pain and its management, including specialties such as anaesthesia, dentistry, neurology and neurosurgery, orthopaedics, palliative care, pharmacology, physiology, psychiatry, psychology and rehabilitation; socio-economic aspects of pain are also covered. Regular sections in the journal are as follows: • Editorials and Commentaries • Position Papers and Guidelines • Reviews • Original Articles • Letters • Bookshelf The journal particularly welcomes clinical trials, which are published on an occasional basis. Research articles are published under the following subject headings: • Neurobiology • Neurology • Experimental Pharmacology • Clinical Pharmacology • Psychology • Behavioural Therapy • Epidemiology • Cancer Pain • Acute Pain • Clinical Trials.
期刊最新文献
A discrete choice experiment: Understanding patient preferences for managing chronic non-cancer pain. Beyond intensity: A commentary on stretch-induced hypoalgesia. Evaluating multiplicity reporting in analgesic clinical trials: An analytical review. Cycling sensitivity across migraine phases: A longitudinal case-control study. Preoperative resting-state electrophysiological signals predict acute but not chronic postoperative pain.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1