Review of the quality of reporting of statistical analysis plans for cluster randomized trials

IF 7.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Jacqueline Y. Thompson , Julia Shaw , Samuel I. Watson , Yixin Wang , Clare Robinson , Monica Taljaard , Karla Hemming
{"title":"Review of the quality of reporting of statistical analysis plans for cluster randomized trials","authors":"Jacqueline Y. Thompson ,&nbsp;Julia Shaw ,&nbsp;Samuel I. Watson ,&nbsp;Yixin Wang ,&nbsp;Clare Robinson ,&nbsp;Monica Taljaard ,&nbsp;Karla Hemming","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and Objectives</h3><div>The guideline for the content of Statistical Analysis Plans (SAPs) outlines recommendations for items to be included in SAPs. As yet there is no specific tailoring of this guideline for Cluster Randomized Trials (CRTs). There has also been no assessment of reporting quality of SAPs against this guideline. Our intention is to identify how well a sample of SAPs for CRTs are adhering to the reporting of key items in the current guidelines, as well as additional analysis aspects considered to be important in CRTs.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We include (i) fully published standalone SAPs identified via Ovid-MEDLINE and (ii) SAPs published as supplementary material or appendices to the final published report identified by searching an existing database of nearly 800 CRTs.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The search identified 85 unique SAPs: 26 were published in standalone format and 59 were supplementary material to the full trial report. There was mixed clarity in reporting of items related to the current guideline (eg, most (61/85, 72%) reported what covariates will be included in any adjustment; but fewer (26/85, 31%) reported what method will be used to estimate the absolute measure of effect). Considering additional aspects important for CRTs, the majority (79/85, 93%) included a plan to allow for clustering in the analysis; but fewer (10/40, 25%) reported how a small number of clusters would be accommodated (this was only considered relevant for the subset of CRTs with fewer than 40 clusters). Few (5/85, 6%) reported how the intracluster correlation would be estimated. Few clearly reported statistical targets of inference: in only two SAPs (2/85, 2%) it was clear whether the objectives were related to the individual or cluster-level average; in trials where relevant, only three (3/70, 4%) clearly reported whether the objectives were related to the marginal or cluster-specific effect.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This review has identified specific areas of poor quality of reporting that might need additional consideration when developing the guidance for the reporting of SAPs for CRTs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"181 ","pages":"Article 111726"},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-16","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/S0895435625000599","RegionNum":2,"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

Abstract

Background and Objectives

The guideline for the content of Statistical Analysis Plans (SAPs) outlines recommendations for items to be included in SAPs. As yet there is no specific tailoring of this guideline for Cluster Randomized Trials (CRTs). There has also been no assessment of reporting quality of SAPs against this guideline. Our intention is to identify how well a sample of SAPs for CRTs are adhering to the reporting of key items in the current guidelines, as well as additional analysis aspects considered to be important in CRTs.

Methods

We include (i) fully published standalone SAPs identified via Ovid-MEDLINE and (ii) SAPs published as supplementary material or appendices to the final published report identified by searching an existing database of nearly 800 CRTs.

Results

The search identified 85 unique SAPs: 26 were published in standalone format and 59 were supplementary material to the full trial report. There was mixed clarity in reporting of items related to the current guideline (eg, most (61/85, 72%) reported what covariates will be included in any adjustment; but fewer (26/85, 31%) reported what method will be used to estimate the absolute measure of effect). Considering additional aspects important for CRTs, the majority (79/85, 93%) included a plan to allow for clustering in the analysis; but fewer (10/40, 25%) reported how a small number of clusters would be accommodated (this was only considered relevant for the subset of CRTs with fewer than 40 clusters). Few (5/85, 6%) reported how the intracluster correlation would be estimated. Few clearly reported statistical targets of inference: in only two SAPs (2/85, 2%) it was clear whether the objectives were related to the individual or cluster-level average; in trials where relevant, only three (3/70, 4%) clearly reported whether the objectives were related to the marginal or cluster-specific effect.

Conclusion

This review has identified specific areas of poor quality of reporting that might need additional consideration when developing the guidance for the reporting of SAPs for CRTs.
聚类随机试验统计分析计划报告质量的评价。
背景:统计分析计划(SAPs)的内容指南概述了统计分析计划中应包括的项目的建议。到目前为止,还没有针对集群随机试验(crt)的具体指南。也没有针对该指南对sap报告质量进行评估。目的:我们的目的是确定用于crt的sap样本在多大程度上遵守了当前指南中关键项目的报告,以及在crt中被认为重要的其他分析方面。方法:我们纳入(i)通过Ovid-MEDLINE确定的完全发表的独立sap,以及(ii)通过检索现有近800个crt数据库确定的最终发表报告的补充材料或附录发布的sap。结果:检索确定了85个独特的sap: 26个以独立格式发表,59个是完整试验报告的补充材料。在报告与现行指南相关的项目时,透明度参差不齐(例如,大多数(61/85,72%)报告了任何调整中将包括哪些协变量;但较少(26/ 85,31 %)报告将使用何种方法来估计效果的绝对度量)。考虑到对crt重要的其他方面,大多数(79/ 85,93%)包括允许在分析中聚类的计划;但较少(10/ 40,25 %)报告了如何容纳少量的集群(这仅被认为与少于40个集群的crt子集相关)。很少(5/ 85,6 %)报告了如何估计簇内相关性。很少有明确报告的统计推断目标:只有两个sap(2/ 85,2 %)清楚目标是否与个人或集群水平的平均值有关;在相关的试验中,只有3个(3/ 70,4%)明确报告了目标是否与边际效应或集群特异性效应相关。结论:本综述确定了报告质量较差的特定领域,在制定针对crt的sap报告指南时可能需要额外考虑这些领域。
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 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信