SynthesisBMC medicine2013
Reporting of analyses from randomized controlled trials with multiple arms: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- The Baby's First Bites RCT: Evaluating a Vegetable-Exposure and a Sensitive-Feeding Intervention in Terms of Child Health Outcomes and Maternal Feeding Behavior During Toddlerhood.The Journal of nutrition · 2022Trial
- Multiplicity adjustments in parallel-group multi-arm trials sharing a control group: Clear guidance is needed.Contemporary clinical trials · 2022Trial
- Housing First Improves Adherence to Antipsychotic Medication Among Formerly Homeless Adults With Schizophrenia: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2017Trial
- Evaluation of a multi-arm multi-stage Bayesian design for phase II drug selection trials - an example in hemato-oncology.BMC medical research methodology · 2016Trial
- Review
- Mindfulness-Based Intervention for Caregivers of Frail Older Chinese Adults: A Study Protocol.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The impact of video gaming on cognitive functioning of people with schizophrenia (GAME-S): study protocol of a randomised controlled trial.BMC psychiatry · 2021Article
- Optimal individualized decision rules from a multi-arm trial: A comparison of methods and an application to tailoring inter-donation intervals among blood donors in the UK.Statistical methods in medical research · 2020Article
- A web application for the design of multi-arm clinical trials.BMC cancer · 2020Article
- Multi-Armed Angle-Based Direct Learning for Estimating Optimal Individualized Treatment Rules With Various Outcomes.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2020Article
- Sample size considerations for stratified cluster randomization design with binary outcomes and varying cluster size.Statistics in medicine · 2019Article
- Patient-important outcomes in randomized controlled trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review.Annals of intensive care · 2017Review
- Article
- Residual Weighted Learning for Estimating Individualized Treatment Rules.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2017Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultiple-arm randomized trials can be more complex in their design, data analysis, and result reporting than two-arm trials. We conducted a systematic review to assess the reporting of analyses in reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with multiple arms.
methodsThe literature in the MEDLINE database was searched for reports of RCTs with multiple arms published in 2009 in the core clinical journals. Two reviewers extracted data using a standardized extraction form.
resultsIn total, 298 reports were identified. Descriptions of the baseline characteristics and outcomes per group were missing in 45 reports (15.1%) and 48 reports (16.1%), respectively. More than half of the articles (n = 171, 57.4%) reported that a planned global test comparison was used (that is, assessment of the global differences between all groups), but 67 (39.2%) of these 171 articles did not report details of the planned analysis. Of the 116 articles reporting a global comparison test, 12 (10.3%) did not report the analysis as planned. In all, 60% of publications (n = 180) described planned pairwise test comparisons (that is, assessment of the difference between two groups), but 20 of these 180 articles (11.1%) did not report the pairwise test comparisons. Of the 204 articles reporting pairwise test comparisons, the comparisons were not planned for 44 (21.6%) of them. Less than half the reports (n = 137; 46%) provided baseline and outcome data per arm and reported the analysis as planned.
conclusionsOur findings highlight discrepancies between the planning and reporting of analyses in reports of multiple-arm trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.