Department of Medicine, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92 019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand; Department of Endocrinology, ADHB, Private Bag 92 024, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.
Department of Medicine, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92 019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Mar;131:22-29. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.012. Epub 2020 Nov 21.
Comparing observed and expected distributions of categorical outcome variables in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has been previously used to assess publication integrity. We applied this technique to withdrawals from RCTs.
We compared the observed distribution of withdrawals with the expected binomial distribution in six sets of RCTs: four control sets and two sets with concerns about their publication integrity.
In the control data sets (n = 13, 115, 71, and 36 trials, respectively), the observed distributions of withdrawals were consistent with the expected distributions, both for the numbers of withdrawals per trial arm and for the differences in withdrawals between trial arms in two-arm RCTs. In contrast, in both sets of RCTs with concerns regarding publication integrity (n = 151 and 35 trials, respectively), there were striking differences between the observed and expected distributions of trial withdrawals. Two-arm RCTs from the two sets with publication integrity concerns were 2.6 (95% confidence interval 2.0-3.3) times more likely to have a difference of 0 or 1 withdrawals between trial arms than control RCTs (P < 0.001). Simulating a 50% higher rate of withdrawals in active treatment arms in the largest set of control RCTs still produced an observed distribution of withdrawals per trial arm consistent with the expected distribution.
Comparing the observed and expected distribution of trial withdrawals may be a useful technique when considering publication integrity of a body of RCTs.
比较随机对照试验(RCT)中分类结局变量的观察分布与预期分布,这一方法以前曾被用于评估发表偏倚。我们将这一技术应用于 RCT 的退出研究。
我们将观察到的退出分布与 6 组 RCT 的预期二项分布进行了比较:4 个对照组和 2 个存在发表偏倚问题的组。
在对照组数据集中(n=13、115、71 和 36 个试验,分别),各试验组中退出的观察分布与预期分布一致,无论是各试验组的退出数量,还是在双臂 RCT 中试验组之间的退出差异。相比之下,在存在发表偏倚问题的两组 RCT 中(n=151 和 35 个试验,分别),试验退出的观察分布和预期分布之间存在显著差异。这两组存在发表偏倚问题的双臂 RCT 试验中,试验组之间的退出差异为 0 或 1 的可能性是对照组 RCT 的 2.6 倍(95%置信区间为 2.0~3.3;P<0.001)。在最大的一组对照组 RCT 中,假设活性治疗组的退出率提高 50%,每个试验组的观察退出分布仍与预期分布一致。
在考虑一组 RCT 的发表偏倚时,比较试验退出的观察分布与预期分布可能是一种有用的方法。