在随机对照试验中处理多重结果需要进一步的指导:方法学文献的范围综述。

IF 5.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-17 DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111724
Hadeel Hussein , Rod S. Taylor , Anthony Muchai Manyara , Anthony Purvis , Richard Emsley , Rui Duarte , Valerie Wells , Yimin Jiang , Grace O. Dibben
{"title":"在随机对照试验中处理多重结果需要进一步的指导:方法学文献的范围综述。","authors":"Hadeel Hussein ,&nbsp;Rod S. Taylor ,&nbsp;Anthony Muchai Manyara ,&nbsp;Anthony Purvis ,&nbsp;Richard Emsley ,&nbsp;Rui Duarte ,&nbsp;Valerie Wells ,&nbsp;Yimin Jiang ,&nbsp;Grace O. Dibben","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To review current methodological guidance for handling and reporting of multiple outcomes (MOCs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><div>A scoping review with bibliographic database searches including Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science up to January 16, 2025 was conducted. Inclusion criteria were articles that: (1) provide advice on the design, analysis, or reporting of RCTs using MOCs; and/or (2) discuss statistical approaches for handling MOCs in RCTs. Six specific websites were also checked for formal and reporting guidelines. Included articles were summarized using thematic analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Searches retrieved 1716 articles of which 123 were included with additional 25 articles from updated search. Eight additional articles were identified by the specific website search. Six main subthemes on methodological recommendations for using MOCs were identified from 74 of 123 articles (60%): (1) need to prespecify outcomes and analysis, (2) multiplicity adjustment, (3) power and sample size implications, (4) secondary outcomes multiplicity, (5) considerations of MOCs correlation, and (6) specific applications of MOCs. Recommendations on coprimary and composite outcomes were also identified, including their features, analyses methods, reporting, and challenges. Statistical methods for analyzing MOCs were discussed in 53 of 123 articles (43%), with the majority describing modifications of pre-existing statistical approaches.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Current recommendations on using MOCs in RCTs focus primarily on statistical considerations and trials of licensing drugs or medical devices. Areas for further methodological research and guidance include reporting of the rationale for the use and selection of MOCs in RCTs and considerations for trials undertaken in nonregulatory setting, including complex interventions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"181 ","pages":"Article 111724"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The need for further guidance on the handling of multiple outcomes in randomized controlled trials: a scoping review of the methodological literature\",\"authors\":\"Hadeel Hussein ,&nbsp;Rod S. Taylor ,&nbsp;Anthony Muchai Manyara ,&nbsp;Anthony Purvis ,&nbsp;Richard Emsley ,&nbsp;Rui Duarte ,&nbsp;Valerie Wells ,&nbsp;Yimin Jiang ,&nbsp;Grace O. Dibben\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111724\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To review current methodological guidance for handling and reporting of multiple outcomes (MOCs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><div>A scoping review with bibliographic database searches including Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science up to January 16, 2025 was conducted. Inclusion criteria were articles that: (1) provide advice on the design, analysis, or reporting of RCTs using MOCs; and/or (2) discuss statistical approaches for handling MOCs in RCTs. Six specific websites were also checked for formal and reporting guidelines. Included articles were summarized using thematic analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Searches retrieved 1716 articles of which 123 were included with additional 25 articles from updated search. Eight additional articles were identified by the specific website search. Six main subthemes on methodological recommendations for using MOCs were identified from 74 of 123 articles (60%): (1) need to prespecify outcomes and analysis, (2) multiplicity adjustment, (3) power and sample size implications, (4) secondary outcomes multiplicity, (5) considerations of MOCs correlation, and (6) specific applications of MOCs. Recommendations on coprimary and composite outcomes were also identified, including their features, analyses methods, reporting, and challenges. Statistical methods for analyzing MOCs were discussed in 53 of 123 articles (43%), with the majority describing modifications of pre-existing statistical approaches.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Current recommendations on using MOCs in RCTs focus primarily on statistical considerations and trials of licensing drugs or medical devices. Areas for further methodological research and guidance include reporting of the rationale for the use and selection of MOCs in RCTs and considerations for trials undertaken in nonregulatory setting, including complex interventions.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"181 \",\"pages\":\"Article 111724\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435625000575\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435625000575","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:回顾当前随机对照试验(RCTs)中多结果(moc)处理和报告的方法学指南。研究设计和设置:对截至2022年7月22日的文献数据库检索(包括Embase、PubMed和Web of Science)进行了范围审查。纳入标准为:(1)对使用moc的rct的设计、分析或报告提供建议;和/或(2)讨论随机对照试验中处理moc的统计方法。还检查了六个特定网站的正式和报告指南。采用专题分析对纳入的文章进行总结。结果:检索到1716篇文章,其中123篇被收录。通过特定网站搜索确定了另外8篇文章。从123篇文章中的74篇(60%)中确定了使用moc的方法学建议的六个主要子主题:(1)需要预先指定结果和分析,(2)多重性调整,(3)功率和样本量影响,(4)次要结果多重性,(5)moc相关性的考虑,以及(6)moc的具体应用。还确定了关于共同主要结果和综合结果的建议,包括其特征、分析方法、报告和挑战。123篇文章中有53篇(43%)讨论了分析moc的统计方法,其中大多数描述了对已有统计方法的修改。结论:目前关于在随机对照试验中使用moc的建议主要集中在药物或医疗器械许可的统计考虑和试验上。进一步方法学研究和指导的领域包括报告在随机对照试验中使用和选择moc的理由,以及对在非监管环境下进行的试验的考虑,包括复杂干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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 need for further guidance on the handling of multiple outcomes in randomized controlled trials: a scoping review of the methodological literature

Objectives

To review current methodological guidance for handling and reporting of multiple outcomes (MOCs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Study Design and Setting

A scoping review with bibliographic database searches including Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science up to January 16, 2025 was conducted. Inclusion criteria were articles that: (1) provide advice on the design, analysis, or reporting of RCTs using MOCs; and/or (2) discuss statistical approaches for handling MOCs in RCTs. Six specific websites were also checked for formal and reporting guidelines. Included articles were summarized using thematic analysis.

Results

Searches retrieved 1716 articles of which 123 were included with additional 25 articles from updated search. Eight additional articles were identified by the specific website search. Six main subthemes on methodological recommendations for using MOCs were identified from 74 of 123 articles (60%): (1) need to prespecify outcomes and analysis, (2) multiplicity adjustment, (3) power and sample size implications, (4) secondary outcomes multiplicity, (5) considerations of MOCs correlation, and (6) specific applications of MOCs. Recommendations on coprimary and composite outcomes were also identified, including their features, analyses methods, reporting, and challenges. Statistical methods for analyzing MOCs were discussed in 53 of 123 articles (43%), with the majority describing modifications of pre-existing statistical approaches.

Conclusion

Current recommendations on using MOCs in RCTs focus primarily on statistical considerations and trials of licensing drugs or medical devices. Areas for further methodological research and guidance include reporting of the rationale for the use and selection of MOCs in RCTs and considerations for trials undertaken in nonregulatory setting, including complex interventions.
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
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.
期刊最新文献
Enhancing trustworthiness checks of randomized controlled trials: a pathway to more reliable evidence Motivation-informed digital reminders were no more effective than standard reminders for trial task completion in a randomized Study Within A Trial (SWAT) A multinomial hierarchical model for meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of ordered or unordered multicategory tests Moderate to high prevalence of spin revealed in abstracts and main texts of medical publications: a systematic review of research-on-research studies Artificial intelligence and large language models for interview transcription in qualitative research: competency, politeness, and ethical implications
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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