心理健康试验中多个结果的分析和报告:一项方法学系统综述。

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Medical Research Methodology Pub Date : 2024-12-21 DOI:10.1186/s12874-024-02451-8
Dominic Stringer, Mollie Payne, Ben Carter, Richard Emsley
{"title":"心理健康试验中多个结果的分析和报告:一项方法学系统综述。","authors":"Dominic Stringer, Mollie Payne, Ben Carter, Richard Emsley","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02451-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The choice of a single primary outcome in randomised trials can be difficult, especially in mental health where interventions may be complex and target several outcomes simultaneously. We carried out a systematic review to assess the quality of the analysis and reporting of multiple outcomes in mental health RCTs, comparing approaches with current CONSORT and other regulatory guidance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review included all late-stage mental health trials published between 1st January 2019 to 31st December 2020 in 9 leading medical and mental health journals. Pilot and feasibility trials, non-randomised trials, and early phase trials were excluded. The total number of primary, secondary and other outcomes was recorded, as was any strategy used to incorporate multiple primary outcomes in the primary analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 147 included mental health trials. Most trials (101/147) followed CONSORT guidance by specifying a single primary outcome with other outcomes defined as secondary and analysed in separate statistical analyses, although a minority (10/147) did not specify any outcomes as primary. Where multiple primary outcomes were specified (33/147), most (26/33) did not correct for multiplicity, contradicting regulatory guidance. The median number of clinical outcomes reported across studies was 8 (IQR 5-11 ).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most trials are correctly following CONSORT guidance. However, there was little consideration given to multiplicity or correlation between outcomes even where multiple primary outcomes were stated. Trials should correct for multiplicity when multiple primary outcomes are specified or describe some other strategy to address the multiplicity. Overall, very few mental health trials are taking advantage of multiple outcome strategies in the primary analysis, especially more complex strategies such as multivariate modelling. More work is required to show these exist, aid interpretation, increase efficiency and are easily implemented.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Our systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 11th January 2023 (CRD42023382274).</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"317"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11662570/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The analysis and reporting of multiple outcomes in mental health trials: a methodological systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Dominic Stringer, Mollie Payne, Ben Carter, Richard Emsley\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12874-024-02451-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The choice of a single primary outcome in randomised trials can be difficult, especially in mental health where interventions may be complex and target several outcomes simultaneously. We carried out a systematic review to assess the quality of the analysis and reporting of multiple outcomes in mental health RCTs, comparing approaches with current CONSORT and other regulatory guidance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review included all late-stage mental health trials published between 1st January 2019 to 31st December 2020 in 9 leading medical and mental health journals. Pilot and feasibility trials, non-randomised trials, and early phase trials were excluded. The total number of primary, secondary and other outcomes was recorded, as was any strategy used to incorporate multiple primary outcomes in the primary analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 147 included mental health trials. Most trials (101/147) followed CONSORT guidance by specifying a single primary outcome with other outcomes defined as secondary and analysed in separate statistical analyses, although a minority (10/147) did not specify any outcomes as primary. Where multiple primary outcomes were specified (33/147), most (26/33) did not correct for multiplicity, contradicting regulatory guidance. The median number of clinical outcomes reported across studies was 8 (IQR 5-11 ).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most trials are correctly following CONSORT guidance. However, there was little consideration given to multiplicity or correlation between outcomes even where multiple primary outcomes were stated. Trials should correct for multiplicity when multiple primary outcomes are specified or describe some other strategy to address the multiplicity. Overall, very few mental health trials are taking advantage of multiple outcome strategies in the primary analysis, especially more complex strategies such as multivariate modelling. More work is required to show these exist, aid interpretation, increase efficiency and are easily implemented.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Our systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 11th January 2023 (CRD42023382274).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"317\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11662570/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02451-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02451-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在随机试验中选择单一主要结局可能是困难的,特别是在心理健康方面,干预措施可能很复杂,同时针对多个结局。我们进行了一项系统综述,以评估心理健康随机对照试验中多结果分析和报告的质量,并将方法与当前的CONSORT和其他监管指南进行了比较。方法:本综述纳入了2019年1月1日至2020年12月31日在9种主要医学和心理健康期刊上发表的所有晚期心理健康试验。排除了试点和可行性试验、非随机试验和早期试验。记录主要、次要和其他结局的总数,以及用于在主要分析中纳入多个主要结局的任何策略。结果:共纳入147项心理健康试验。大多数试验(101/147)遵循CONSORT指南,指定单个主要结局,其他结局定义为次要结局,并在单独的统计分析中进行分析,尽管少数试验(10/147)没有指定任何结局作为主要结局。在指定多个主要结局的情况下(33/147),大多数(26/33)没有纠正多重性,这与监管指导相矛盾。所有研究报告的临床结果中位数为8 (IQR 5-11)。结论:大多数试验正确地遵循CONSORT指南。然而,即使在陈述多个主要结果时,也很少考虑结果之间的多重性或相关性。当指定多个主要结果时,试验应纠正多重性或描述一些其他策略来解决多重性。总体而言,很少有心理健康试验在初级分析中利用多种结果策略,特别是更复杂的策略,如多变量建模。需要做更多的工作来证明这些存在,帮助解释,提高效率并易于实施。注册:我们的系统评价方案已于2023年1月11日在国际前瞻性系统评价注册中心(PROSPERO)注册(CRD42023382274)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The analysis and reporting of multiple outcomes in mental health trials: a methodological systematic review.

Background: The choice of a single primary outcome in randomised trials can be difficult, especially in mental health where interventions may be complex and target several outcomes simultaneously. We carried out a systematic review to assess the quality of the analysis and reporting of multiple outcomes in mental health RCTs, comparing approaches with current CONSORT and other regulatory guidance.

Methods: The review included all late-stage mental health trials published between 1st January 2019 to 31st December 2020 in 9 leading medical and mental health journals. Pilot and feasibility trials, non-randomised trials, and early phase trials were excluded. The total number of primary, secondary and other outcomes was recorded, as was any strategy used to incorporate multiple primary outcomes in the primary analysis.

Results: There were 147 included mental health trials. Most trials (101/147) followed CONSORT guidance by specifying a single primary outcome with other outcomes defined as secondary and analysed in separate statistical analyses, although a minority (10/147) did not specify any outcomes as primary. Where multiple primary outcomes were specified (33/147), most (26/33) did not correct for multiplicity, contradicting regulatory guidance. The median number of clinical outcomes reported across studies was 8 (IQR 5-11 ).

Conclusions: Most trials are correctly following CONSORT guidance. However, there was little consideration given to multiplicity or correlation between outcomes even where multiple primary outcomes were stated. Trials should correct for multiplicity when multiple primary outcomes are specified or describe some other strategy to address the multiplicity. Overall, very few mental health trials are taking advantage of multiple outcome strategies in the primary analysis, especially more complex strategies such as multivariate modelling. More work is required to show these exist, aid interpretation, increase efficiency and are easily implemented.

Registration: Our systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 11th January 2023 (CRD42023382274).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
期刊最新文献
A generative model for evaluating missing data methods in large epidemiological cohorts. Discrepancies in safety reporting for chronic back pain clinical trials: an observational study from ClinicalTrials.gov and publications. Multiple states clustering analysis (MSCA), an unsupervised approach to multiple time-to-event electronic health records applied to multimorbidity associated with myocardial infarction. Matching plus regression adjustment for the estimation of the average treatment effect on survival outcomes: a case study with mosunetuzumab in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma. Protocol publication rate and comparison between article, registry and protocol in RCTs.
×
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