Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35199145›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2022

Are we leaving money on the table in infertility RCTs? Trialists should statistically adjust for prespecified, prognostic covariates to increase power.

J Wilkinson, M Showell, V P Taxiarchi, S Lensen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

4 authors.

J WilkinsonCentre for Biostatistics, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3513-4677
M ShowellCochrane Gynaecology and Fertility, The University of Auckland, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-1227-4303
V P TaxiarchiCentre for Biostatistics, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0737-098X
S LensenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Women's Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1694-1142

Funding

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

Abstract

Infertility randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often too small to detect realistic treatment effects. Large observational studies have been proposed as a solution. However, this strategy threatens to weaken the evidence base further, because non-random assignment to treatments makes it impossible to distinguish effects of treatment from confounding factors. Alternative solutions are required. Power in an RCT can be increased by adjusting for prespecified, prognostic covariates when performing statistical analysis, and if stratified randomization or minimization has been used, it is essential to adjust in order to get the correct answer. We present data showing that this simple, free and frequently necessary strategy for increasing power is seldom employed, even in trials appearing in leading journals. We use this article to motivate a pedagogical discussion and provide a worked example. While covariate adjustment cannot solve the problem of underpowered trials outright, there is an imperative to use sound methodology to maximize the information each trial yields.

Indexed as

InfertilityResearch DesignComputer SimulationHumansPrognosisRandom Allocationcovariate adjustmentinfertilityRCTsresearch methodsstatistics

Identifiers

PMID35199145
PMCPMC9071217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.