Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34362422›Full record

ArticleTrials2021

The implications of outcome truncation in reproductive medicine RCTs: a simulation platform for trialists and simulation study.

Jack Wilkinson, Jonathan Y Huang, Antonia Marsden, Michael O Harhay, Andy Vail, Stephen A Roberts

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 46% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Jack WilkinsonCentre for Biostatistics, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK. jack.wilkinson@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3513-4677
Jonathan Y HuangBiostatistics and Human Development; Singapore Institute for Clinical Sciences; Agency for Science, Technology, and Research, Singapore, Singapore.
Antonia MarsdenCentre for Biostatistics, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK.
Michael O HarhayDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Andy VailCentre for Biostatistics, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK.
Stephen A RobertsCentre for Biostatistics, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBSingapore Institute for Clinical Sciences · SGUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 204796/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandomised controlled trials in reproductive medicine are often subject to outcome truncation, where the study outcomes are only defined in a subset of the randomised cohort. Examples include birthweight (measurable only in the subgroup of participants who give birth) and miscarriage (which can only occur in participants who become pregnant). These outcomes are typically analysed by making a comparison between treatment arms within the subgroup (for example, comparing birthweights in the subgroup who gave birth or miscarriages in the subgroup who became pregnant). However, this approach does not represent a randomised comparison when treatment influences the probability of being observed (i.e. survival). The practical implications of this for the design and interpretation of reproductive trials are unclear however.

methodsWe developed a simulation platform to investigate the implications of outcome truncation for reproductive medicine trials. We used this to perform a simulation study, in which we considered the bias, type 1 error, coverage, and precision of standard statistical analyses for truncated continuous and binary outcomes. Simulation settings were informed by published assisted reproduction trials.

resultsIncreasing treatment effect on the intermediate variable, strength of confounding between the intermediate and outcome variables, and the presence of an interaction between treatment and confounder were found to adversely affect performance. However, within parameter ranges we would consider to be more realistic, the adverse effects were generally not drastic. For binary outcomes, the study highlighted that outcome truncation could cause separation in smaller studies, where none or all of the participants in a study arm experience the outcome event. This was found to have severe consequences for inferences.

conclusionWe have provided a simulation platform that can be used by researchers in the design and interpretation of reproductive medicine trials subject to outcome truncation and have used this to conduct a simulation study. The study highlights several key factors which trialists in the field should consider carefully to protect against erroneous inferences. Standard analyses of truncated binary outcomes in small studies may be highly biassed, and it remains to identify suitable approaches for analysing data in this context.

Indexed as

Abortion, SpontaneousReproductive MedicineBiasFemaleHumansPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAssisted reproductionCensoringCompeting risksHypothetical estimandInfertilityIn vitro fertilisationOutcome truncationRandomised controlled trialsReproductive medicineTruncation by death

Identifiers

PMID34362422
PMCPMC8344218
OpenAlexW3091781424

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.