Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33168073›Full record

Trial reportTrials2020

Analysis of multicenter clinical trials with very low event rates.

Jiyu Kim, Andrea B Troxel, Scott D Halpern, Kevin G Volpp, Brennan C Kahan, Tim P Morris, Michael O Harhay

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jiyu KimDivision of Biostatistics, Department of Population Health, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Andrea B TroxelDivision of Biostatistics, Department of Population Health, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Scott D HalpernPalliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 304 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-6021, USA.
Kevin G VolppDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Brennan C KahanMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK.
Tim P MorrisMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK.
Michael O HarhayPalliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 304 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-6021, USA. mharhay@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0553-674X

Funding

Improving the fairness of RCTs among patients with acute and chronic respiratory failureK24HL143289 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Scott D Halpern · 2018 to 2026
$1.1M
Improving the measurement and analysis of long-term, patient-centered outcomes following acute respiratory failureR00HL141678 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI HARHAY, MICHAEL OSCAR · 2020 to 2022
$747k
Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/21Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/29NHLBI NIH HHS K24 HL143289NHLBI NIH HHS R00 HL141678
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn a five-arm randomized clinical trial (RCT) with stratified randomization across 54 sites, we encountered low primary outcome event proportions, resulting in multiple sites with zero events either overall or in one or more study arms. In this paper, we systematically evaluated different statistical methods of accounting for center in settings with low outcome event proportions.

methodsWe conducted a simulation study and a reanalysis of a completed RCT to compare five popular methods of estimating an odds ratio for multicenter trials with stratified randomization by center: (i) no center adjustment, (ii) random intercept model, (iii) Mantel-Haenszel model, (iv) generalized estimating equation (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation structure, and (v) GEE with small sample correction (GEE-small sample correction). We varied the number of total participants (200, 500, 1000, 5000), number of centers (5, 50, 100), control group outcome percentage (2%, 5%, 10%), true odds ratio (1, > 1), intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) (0.025, 0.075), and distribution of participants across the centers (balanced, skewed).

resultsMantel-Haenszel methods generally performed poorly in terms of power and bias and led to the exclusion of participants from the analysis because some centers had no events. Failure to account for center in the analysis generally led to lower power and type I error rates than other methods, particularly with ICC = 0.075. GEE had an inflated type I error rate except in some settings with a large number of centers. GEE-small sample correction maintained the type I error rate at the nominal level but suffered from reduced power and convergence issues in some settings when the number of centers was small. Random intercept models generally performed well in most scenarios, except with a low event rate (i.e., 2% scenario) and small total sample size (n ≤ 500), when all methods had issues. DISCUSSION: Random intercept models generally performed best across most scenarios. GEE-small sample correction performed well when the number of centers was large. We do not recommend the use of Mantel-Haenszel, GEE, or models that do not account for center. When the expected event rate is low, we suggest that the statistical analysis plan specify an alternative method in the case of non-convergence of the primary method.

Indexed as

Research DesignBiasComputer SimulationHumansSample SizeBinary outcomesGEELow event rateMantel–HaenszelMulticenter trialRandom effectsRandomized clinical trialSmall sample adjustmentStratified randomization

Identifiers

PMID33168073
PMCPMC7654615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.