Accounting for centre-effects in multicentre trials with a binary outcome - when, why, and how?

BACKGROUND: It is often desirable to account for centre-effects in the analysis of multicentre randomised trials, however it is unclear which analysis methods are best in trials with a binary outcome. METHODS: We compared the performance of four methods of analysis (fixed-effects models, random-effects models, generalised estimating equations (GEE), and Mantel-Haenszel) using a re-analysis of a previously reported randomised trial (MIST2) and a large simulation study. RESULTS: The re-analysis of MIST2 found that fixed-effects and Mantel-Haenszel led to many patients being dropped from the analysis due to over-stratification (up to 69% dropped for Mantel-Haenszel, and up to 33% dropped for fixed-effects). Conversely, random-effects and GEE included all patients in the analysis, however GEE did not reach convergence. Estimated treatment effects and p-values were highly variable across different analysis methods. The simulation study found that most methods of analysis performed well with a small number of centres. With a large number of centres, fixed-effects led to biased estimates and inflated type I error rates in many situations, and Mantel-Haenszel lost power compared to other analysis methods in some situations. Conversely, both random-effects and GEE gave nominal type I error rates and good power across all scenarios, and were usually as good as or better than either fixed-effects or Mantel-Haenszel. However, this was only true for GEEs with non-robust standard errors (SEs); using a robust ‘sandwich’ estimator led to inflated type I error rates across most scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: With a small number of centres, we recommend the use of fixed-effects, random-effects, or GEE with non-robust SEs. Random-effects and GEE with non-robust SEs should be used with a moderate or large number of centres

Adjusting for multiple prognostic factors in the analysis of randomised trials

Background: When multiple prognostic factors are adjusted for in the analysis of a randomised trial, it is unclear (1) whether it is necessary to account for each of the strata, formed by all combinations of the prognostic factors (stratified analysis), when randomisation has been balanced within each stratum (stratified randomisation), or whether adjusting for the main effects alone will suffice, and (2) the best method of adjustment in terms of type I error rate and power, irrespective of the randomisation method. Methods: We used simulation to (1) determine if a stratified analysis is necessary after stratified randomisation, and (2) to compare different methods of adjustment in terms of power and type I error rate. We considered the following methods of analysis: adjusting for covariates in a regression model, adjusting for each stratum using either fixed or random effects, and Mantel-Haenszel or a stratified Cox model depending on outcome. Results: Stratified analysis is required after stratified randomisation to maintain correct type I error rates when (a) there are strong interactions between prognostic factors, and (b) there are approximately equal number of patients in each stratum. However, simulations based on real trial data found that type I error rates were unaffected by the method of analysis (stratified vs unstratified), indicating these conditions were not met in real datasets. Comparison of different analysis methods found that with small sample sizes and a binary or time-to-event outcome, most analysis methods lead to either inflated type I error rates or a reduction in power; the lone exception was a stratified analysis using random effects for strata, which gave nominal type I error rates and adequate power. Conclusions: It is unlikely that a stratified analysis is necessary after stratified randomisation except in extreme scenarios. Therefore, the method of analysis (accounting for the strata, or adjusting only for the covariates) will not generally need to depend on the method of randomisation used. Most methods of analysis work well with large sample sizes, however treating strata as random effects should be the analysis method of choice with binary or time-to-event outcomes and a small sample size

Assessing potential sources of clustering in individually randomised trials

Recent reviews have shown that while clustering is extremely common in individually randomised trials (for example, clustering within centre, therapist, or surgeon), it is rarely accounted for in the trial analysis. Our aim is to develop a general framework for assessing whether potential sources of clustering must be accounted for in the trial analysis to obtain valid type I error rates (non-ignorable clustering), with a particular focus on individually randomised trials

Prevention of haematoma progression by tranexamic acid in intracerebral haemorrhage patients with and without spot sign on admission scan: a statistical analysis plan of a pre-specified sub-study of the TICH-2 trial

Objective We present the statistical analysis plan of a prespecified Tranexamic Acid for Hyperacute Primary Intracerebral Haemorrhage (TICH)-2 sub-study aiming to investigate, if tranexamic acid has a different effect in intracerebral haemorrhage patients with the spot sign on admission compared to spot sign negative patients. The TICH-2 trial recruited above 2000 participants with intracerebral haemorrhage arriving in hospital within 8 h after symptom onset. They were included irrespective of radiological signs of on-going haematoma expansion. Participants were randomised to tranexamic acid versus matching placebo. In this subgroup analysis, we will include all participants in TICH-2 with a computed tomography angiography on admission allowing adjudication of the participants’ spot sign status. Results Primary outcome will be the ability of tranexamic acid to limit absolute haematoma volume on computed tomography at 24 h (± 12 h) after randomisation among spot sign positive and spot sign negative participants, respectively. Within all outcome measures, the effect of tranexamic acid in spot sign positive/negative participants will be compared using tests of interaction. This sub-study will investigate the important clinical hypothesis that spot sign positive patients might benefit more from administration of tranexamic acid compared to spot sign negative patients

Screening for data clustering in multicenter studies: the residual intraclass correlation

status: publishe

Multinational development and validation of an early prediction model for delirium in ICU patients

Rationale Delirium incidence in intensive care unit (ICU) patients is high and associated with poor outcome. Identification of high-risk patients may facilitate its prevention. Purpose To develop and validate a model based on data available at ICU admission to predict delirium development during a patient’s complete ICU stay and to determine the predictive value of this model in relation to the time of delirium development. Methods Prospective cohort study in 13 ICUs from seven countries. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to develop the early prediction (E-PRE-DELIRIC) model on data of the first two-thirds and validated on data of the last one-third of the patients from every participating ICU. Results In total, 2914 patients were included. Delirium incidence was 23.6 %. The E-PRE-DELIRIC model consists of nine predictors assessed at ICU admission: age, history of cognitive impairment, history of alcohol abuse, blood urea nitrogen, admission category, urgent admission, mean arterial blood pressure, use of corticosteroids, and respiratory failure. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.76 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.73–0.77] in the development dataset and 0.75 (95 % CI 0.71–0.79) in the validation dataset. The model was well calibrated. AUROC increased from 0.70 (95 % CI 0.67–0.74), for delirium that developed 6 days. Conclusion Patients’ delirium risk for the complete ICU length of stay can be predicted at admission using the E-PRE-DELIRIC model, allowing early preventive interventions aimed to reduce incidence and severity of ICU delirium

Reproducibility of preclinical animal research improves with heterogeneity of study samples

Single-laboratory studies conducted under highly standardized conditions are the gold standard in preclinical animal research. Using simulations based on 440 preclinical studies across 13 different interventions in animal models of stroke, myocardial infarction, and breast cancer, we compared the accuracy of effect size estimates between single-laboratory and multi-laboratory study designs. Single-laboratory studies generally failed to predict effect size accurately, and larger sample sizes rendered effect size estimates even less accurate. By contrast, multi-laboratory designs including as few as 2 to 4 laboratories increased coverage probability by up to 42 percentage points without a need for larger sample sizes. These findings demonstrate that within-study standardization is a major cause of poor reproducibility. More representative study samples are required to improve the external validity and reproducibility of preclinical animal research and to prevent wasting animals and resources for inconclusive research

A simple method for estimating relative risk using logistic regression

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Odds ratios (OR) significantly overestimate associations between risk factors and common outcomes. The estimation of relative risks (RR) or prevalence ratios (PR) has represented a statistical challenge in multivariate analysis and, furthermore, some researchers do not have access to the available methods. Objective: To propose and evaluate a new method for estimating RR and PR by logistic regression.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A provisional database was designed in which events were duplicated but identified as non-events. After, a logistic regression was performed and effect measures were calculated, which were considered RR estimations. This method was compared with binomial regression, Cox regression with robust variance and ordinary logistic regression in analyses with three outcomes of different frequencies.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>ORs estimated by ordinary logistic regression progressively overestimated RRs as the outcome frequency increased. RRs estimated by Cox regression and the method proposed in this article were similar to those estimated by binomial regression for every outcome. However, confidence intervals were wider with the proposed method.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This simple tool could be useful for calculating the effect of risk factors and the impact of health interventions in developing countries when other statistical strategies are not available.</p

Physicians' communication skills with patients and legal liability in decided medical malpractice litigation cases in Japan

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In medical malpractice litigations in recent years in Japan, it is notable that the growing number of medical litigation cases includes the issue of a doctor's explanation to the patient as a pivotal point. The objective of this study was to identify factors of physicians' communication skills with patients, as related to their legal liability, and differences in doctors' communication skills with patients by the type of medical facility.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Decisions of medical malpractice litigation cases between 1988 and 2005 in Japan, the pivotal issue of which was a physician's explanation, were analyzed in the study. The content of each decision was summarized using the study variables (information about the patient, doctor, manner of the doctor's explanation, and subsequent litigation), and a database comprising the content of each decision (<it>N </it>= 100) was constructed. In order to evaluate an association between doctors' communication skills with patients and the outcome of the litigation, the analysis was performed based on the outcome of litigation or the type of medical facility.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The ratio of acknowledged physician liability by court decision was lower in cases in which the doctor's explanation occurred before treatment or surgery (<it>p </it>= 0.013). The ratio of acknowledged physician liability by court decision was higher in cases of elective or non-urgent treatment (<it>p </it>= 0.046). The ratio of acknowledged physician liability by court decision was higher in clinics than in hospital groups (<it>p </it>= 0.036).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These findings are beneficial for the prevention of medical disputes and improvement of patient-physician communication.</p

Physicians' explanatory behaviours and legal liability in decided medical malpractice litigation cases in Japan

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A physician's duty to provide an adequate explanation to the patient is derived from the doctrine of informed consent and the physician's duty of disclosure. However, findings are extremely limited with respect to physicians' specific explanatory behaviours and what might be regarded as a breach of the physicians' duty to explain in an actual medical setting. This study sought to identify physicians' explanatory behaviours that may be related to the physicians' legal liability.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We analysed legal decisions of medical malpractice cases between 1990 and 2009 in which the pivotal issue was the physician's duty to explain (366 cases). To identify factors related to the breach of the physician's duty to explain, an analysis was undertaken based on acknowledged breaches with regard to the physician's duty to explain to the patient according to court decisions. Additionally, to identify predictors of physicians' behaviours in breach of the duty to explain, logistic regression analysis was performed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>When the physician's explanation was given before treatment or surgery (<it>p </it>= 0.006), when it was relevant or specific (<it>p </it>= 0.000), and when the patient's consent was obtained (<it>p </it>= 0.002), the explanation was less likely to be deemed inadequate or a breach of the physician's duty to explain. Patient factors related to physicians' legally problematic explanations were patient age and gender. One physician factor was related to legally problematic physician explanations, namely the number of physicians involved in the patient's treatment.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These findings may be useful in improving physician-patient communication in the medical setting.</p