Challenges in Results Robustness of Trials with Missing Data for the Primary Endpoint: Insights from Coronary Balloon/Stent Trials.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy Pub Date : 2025-03-27 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/RMHP.S511449
Xinyue Lang, Yanyan Zhao, Yingxuan Zhu, Lei Song, Chuangshi Wang, Duoer Wang, Chilie Danzeng, Yang Wang, Wei Li
{"title":"Challenges in Results Robustness of Trials with Missing Data for the Primary Endpoint: Insights from Coronary Balloon/Stent Trials.","authors":"Xinyue Lang, Yanyan Zhao, Yingxuan Zhu, Lei Song, Chuangshi Wang, Duoer Wang, Chilie Danzeng, Yang Wang, Wei Li","doi":"10.2147/RMHP.S511449","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To assess the consequence of different degrees of missing primary endpoint data for randomized controlled trials and to find the influence factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to Nov 30, 2023. We included trials of the drug-coated balloon/drug-eluted stent with angiographic outcomes as the primary endpoint. The tipping-point analysis was used to deal with the missing data for the primary endpoint. The inconsistency rate, tipping-point standardized effect size (SES) and tipping-point ratio were used to assess the result robustness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 101 trials were included, which had 109 trial comparisons. Among them, 89 (81.7%) comparisons had superior/non-inferior conclusions (H<sub>0</sub> rejected); 85 (78.0%) comparisons had a missing rate of ≥10%, and 30 (27.5%) comparisons had a missing rate of ≥20%. For H<sub>0</sub> rejected comparisons with a missing rate of ≥10%, the median of inconsistency rate, tipping-point SES and tipping-point ratio was 32.2% (IQR 19.7%, 45.4%), 0.90 (IQR 0.17, 1.79) and -1.53 (IQR -2.43, -0.39). A higher missing rate and a larger (worse) observed-target SES were associated with a more unreliable result.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A high dropout rate and inflated target effect size could cause an unreliable result. We emphasize a robust evaluation of the results for clinical trials with missing data for the primary endpoint.</p>","PeriodicalId":56009,"journal":{"name":"Risk Management and Healthcare Policy","volume":"18 ","pages":"1045-1056"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11956701/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Management and Healthcare Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S511449","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To assess the consequence of different degrees of missing primary endpoint data for randomized controlled trials and to find the influence factors.

Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to Nov 30, 2023. We included trials of the drug-coated balloon/drug-eluted stent with angiographic outcomes as the primary endpoint. The tipping-point analysis was used to deal with the missing data for the primary endpoint. The inconsistency rate, tipping-point standardized effect size (SES) and tipping-point ratio were used to assess the result robustness.

Results: A total of 101 trials were included, which had 109 trial comparisons. Among them, 89 (81.7%) comparisons had superior/non-inferior conclusions (H0 rejected); 85 (78.0%) comparisons had a missing rate of ≥10%, and 30 (27.5%) comparisons had a missing rate of ≥20%. For H0 rejected comparisons with a missing rate of ≥10%, the median of inconsistency rate, tipping-point SES and tipping-point ratio was 32.2% (IQR 19.7%, 45.4%), 0.90 (IQR 0.17, 1.79) and -1.53 (IQR -2.43, -0.39). A higher missing rate and a larger (worse) observed-target SES were associated with a more unreliable result.

Conclusion: A high dropout rate and inflated target effect size could cause an unreliable result. We emphasize a robust evaluation of the results for clinical trials with missing data for the primary endpoint.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
2.90%
发文量
242
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Risk Management and Healthcare Policy is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal focusing on all aspects of public health, policy and preventative measures to promote good health and improve morbidity and mortality in the population. Specific topics covered in the journal include: Public and community health Policy and law Preventative and predictive healthcare Risk and hazard management Epidemiology, detection and screening Lifestyle and diet modification Vaccination and disease transmission/modification programs Health and safety and occupational health Healthcare services provision Health literacy and education Advertising and promotion of health issues Health economic evaluations and resource management Risk Management and Healthcare Policy focuses on human interventional and observational research. The journal welcomes submitted papers covering original research, clinical and epidemiological studies, reviews and evaluations, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary, and extended reports. Case reports will only be considered if they make a valuable and original contribution to the literature. The journal does not accept study protocols, animal-based or cell line-based studies.
×
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