Prioritizing attributes of approaches to analyzing patient-centered outcomes that are truncated due to death in critical care clinical trials: a Delphi study.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Trials Pub Date : 2025-01-10 DOI:10.1186/s13063-024-08673-x
Melanie Bahti, Brennan C Kahan, Fan Li, Michael O Harhay, Catherine L Auriemma
{"title":"Prioritizing attributes of approaches to analyzing patient-centered outcomes that are truncated due to death in critical care clinical trials: a Delphi study.","authors":"Melanie Bahti, Brennan C Kahan, Fan Li, Michael O Harhay, Catherine L Auriemma","doi":"10.1186/s13063-024-08673-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A key challenge for many critical care clinical trials is that some patients will die before their outcome is fully measured. This is referred to as \"truncation due to death\" and must be accounted for in both the treatment effect definition (i.e. the estimand), as well as the statistical analysis approach. It is unknown which analytic approaches to this challenge are most relevant to stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a modified Delphi process, we sought to identify critical attributes of analytic methods used to account for truncation due to death in critical care clinical trials. The Delphi panel included stakeholders with diverse professional or personal experience in critical care-focused clinical trials. The research team generated an initial list of attributes and associated definitions. The attribute list and definitions were refined through two Delphi rounds. Panelists ranked and scored attributes and provided open-ended rationales for responses. A consensus threshold was set as ≥ 70% of respondents rating an attribute as \"Critical\" (i.e., score ≥ 7 on a 9-point Likert scale) and ≤ 15% of respondents rating the measure as \"Not Important\" (i.e., a score of ≤ 3).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-one (91%) of 34 invited individuals participated in one or both rounds. The response rate was 82% in Round 1 and 85% in Round 2. Participants included eight (26%) personal experience experts and 26 (84%) professional experience experts. After two Delphi rounds, four attributes met the criteria for consensus: accuracy (the approach will identify effects if they exist, but will not if they do not), interpretability (the approach enables a straightforward interpretation of the intervention's effect), clinical relevance (the approach can directly inform patient care), and patient-centeredness (the approach is relevant to patients and/or their families). Attributes that did not meet the consensus threshold included sensitivity, comparability, familiarity, mechanistic plausibility, and statistical simplicity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found that methods used to account for truncation due to death in the treatment effect definition and statistical approach in critical care trials should meet at least four defined criteria: accuracy, interpretability, clinical relevance, and patient-centeredness. Future work is needed to derive objective criteria to quantify how well existing estimands and analytic approaches encompass these attributes.</p>","PeriodicalId":23333,"journal":{"name":"Trials","volume":"26 1","pages":"15"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11721323/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08673-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A key challenge for many critical care clinical trials is that some patients will die before their outcome is fully measured. This is referred to as "truncation due to death" and must be accounted for in both the treatment effect definition (i.e. the estimand), as well as the statistical analysis approach. It is unknown which analytic approaches to this challenge are most relevant to stakeholders.

Methods: Using a modified Delphi process, we sought to identify critical attributes of analytic methods used to account for truncation due to death in critical care clinical trials. The Delphi panel included stakeholders with diverse professional or personal experience in critical care-focused clinical trials. The research team generated an initial list of attributes and associated definitions. The attribute list and definitions were refined through two Delphi rounds. Panelists ranked and scored attributes and provided open-ended rationales for responses. A consensus threshold was set as ≥ 70% of respondents rating an attribute as "Critical" (i.e., score ≥ 7 on a 9-point Likert scale) and ≤ 15% of respondents rating the measure as "Not Important" (i.e., a score of ≤ 3).

Results: Thirty-one (91%) of 34 invited individuals participated in one or both rounds. The response rate was 82% in Round 1 and 85% in Round 2. Participants included eight (26%) personal experience experts and 26 (84%) professional experience experts. After two Delphi rounds, four attributes met the criteria for consensus: accuracy (the approach will identify effects if they exist, but will not if they do not), interpretability (the approach enables a straightforward interpretation of the intervention's effect), clinical relevance (the approach can directly inform patient care), and patient-centeredness (the approach is relevant to patients and/or their families). Attributes that did not meet the consensus threshold included sensitivity, comparability, familiarity, mechanistic plausibility, and statistical simplicity.

Conclusions: We found that methods used to account for truncation due to death in the treatment effect definition and statistical approach in critical care trials should meet at least four defined criteria: accuracy, interpretability, clinical relevance, and patient-centeredness. Future work is needed to derive objective criteria to quantify how well existing estimands and analytic approaches encompass these attributes.

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
分析危重病临床试验中因死亡而被截断的以患者为中心的结果的方法的优先属性:德尔菲研究
背景:许多重症监护临床试验面临的一个关键挑战是,一些患者在完全测量结果之前就会死亡。这被称为“死亡截断”,必须在治疗效果定义(即估计值)和统计分析方法中加以考虑。目前尚不清楚哪一种分析方法对涉众来说是最相关的。方法:使用改进的德尔菲过程,我们试图确定用于解释重症临床试验中死亡截断的分析方法的关键属性。德尔菲小组包括在重症监护临床试验方面具有不同专业或个人经验的利益相关者。研究小组生成了一个属性和相关定义的初始列表。属性列表和定义通过两轮Delphi进行细化。小组成员对属性进行排名和评分,并为回应提供开放式的基本原理。共识阈值设置为≥70%的受访者将属性评为“关键”(即在9分李克特量表上得分≥7),≤15%的受访者将该措施评为“不重要”(即得分≤3)。结果:34名被邀请的个人中有31人(91%)参加了一轮或两轮。第一轮的反应率为82%,第二轮为85%。参与者包括8名(26%)个人体验专家和26名(84%)专业体验专家。经过两轮德尔菲,四个属性达到了共识标准:准确性(该方法可以识别存在的效果,但如果不存在则无法识别)、可解释性(该方法可以直接解释干预的效果)、临床相关性(该方法可以直接告知患者护理)和以患者为中心(该方法与患者和/或其家庭相关)。未达到共识阈值的属性包括敏感性、可比性、熟悉性、机制合理性和统计简单性。结论:我们发现,在重症监护试验的治疗效果定义和统计方法中,用于解释因死亡而导致的截断的方法应至少满足四个定义标准:准确性、可解释性、临床相关性和以患者为中心。未来的工作需要得出客观的标准来量化现有的评估和分析方法如何很好地包含这些属性。
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
Trials
Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
966
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Trials is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that will encompass all aspects of the performance and findings of randomized controlled trials. Trials will experiment with, and then refine, innovative approaches to improving communication about trials. We are keen to move beyond publishing traditional trial results articles (although these will be included). We believe this represents an exciting opportunity to advance the science and reporting of trials. Prior to 2006, Trials was published as Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine (CCTCVM). All published CCTCVM articles are available via the Trials website and citations to CCTCVM article URLs will continue to be supported.
期刊最新文献
Enhancing vaccine clinical trials participation among elderly: challenges and strategies. How to improve the quality of euglycemic glucose clamp tests in long-acting insulin studies. Assessing the effectiveness and the feasibility of a group-based treatment for self-stigma in people with mental disorders in routine mental health services in North-East Italy: study protocol for a pragmatic multisite randomized controlled trial. Distribution of trial registry numbers within full-text of PubMed Central articles: implications for linking trials to publications and indexing trial publication types. The impact of vitamin E supplementation on sperm analysis in varicocelectomy patients: a triple-blind randomized controlled trial.
×
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