Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37085929›Full record

ArticleTrials2023

Statistical analyses of ordinal outcomes in randomised controlled trials: protocol for a scoping review.

Chris J Selman, Katherine J Lee, Clare L Whitehead, Brett J Manley, Robert K Mahar

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Analysis and Reporting of Randomized Trials in Cleft Palate Surgery: Learning from the Timing of Primary Surgery (TOPS) Trial.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2025
    Article
  2. The Influence of Sidedness in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate on Mid Facial Growth at Five Years of Age.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Chris J SelmanClinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia. chris.selman@mcri.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1277-5538
Katherine J LeeClinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
Clare L WhiteheadDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
Brett J ManleyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
Robert K MaharClinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council ID1035261National Health and Medical Research Council ID1127984National Health and Medical Research Council ID1171422
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) aim to assess the effect of one (or more) unproven health interventions relative to other reference interventions. RCTs sometimes use an ordinal outcome, which is an endpoint that comprises of multiple, monotonically ordered categories that are not necessarily separated by a quantifiable distance. Ordinal outcomes are appealing in clinical settings as specific disease states can represent meaningful categories that may be of clinical importance to researchers. Ordinal outcomes can also retain information and increase statistical power compared to dichotomised outcomes and can allow multiple clinical outcomes to be comprised in a single endpoint. Target parameters for ordinal outcomes in RCTs may vary depending on the nature of the research question, the modelling assumptions and the expertise of the data analyst. The aim of this scoping review is to systematically describe the use of ordinal outcomes in contemporary RCTs. Specifically, we aim to: [Formula: see text] Identify which target parameters are of interest in trials that use an ordinal outcome, and whether these parameters are explicitly defined. [Formula: see text] Describe how ordinal outcomes are analysed in RCTs to estimate a treatment effect. [Formula: see text] Describe whether RCTs that use an ordinal outcome adequately report key methodological aspects specific to the analysis of the ordinal outcome. Results from this review will outline the current state of practice of the use of ordinal outcomes in RCTs. Ways to improve the analysis and reporting of ordinal outcomes in RCTs will be discussed. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will review RCTs that are published in the top four medical journals (British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the Journal of the American Medical Association) between 1 January 2012 and 31 July 2022 that use an ordinal outcome as either a primary or a secondary outcome. The review will identify articles through a PubMed-specific search strategy. Our review will adhere to guidelines for scoping reviews as described in the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The study characteristics and details of the study design and analysis, including the target parameter(s) and statistical methods used to analyse the ordinal outcome, will be extracted from eligible studies. The screening, review and data extraction will be conducted using Covidence, a web-based tool for managing systematic reviews. The data will be summarised using descriptive statistics.

Indexed as

ChecklistResearch DesignHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicScoping Reviews as TopicUnited StatesOrdinal outcomesRandomised controlled trialsScoping review

Identifiers

PMID37085929
PMCPMC10119829

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.