Subgroup analysis and covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials of traumatic brain injury:: A systematic review

被引:42
作者
Hernández, AV
Steyerberg, EW
Taylor, GS
Marmarou, A
Habbema, JDF
Maas, AIR
机构
[1] Univ Rotterdam, Med Ctr, Erasmus MC, Dept Publ Hlth,Ctr Clin Decis Sci, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[2] Univ Edinburgh, Sch Med, Div Commun Hlth Sci, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland
[3] Virginia Commonwealth Univ, Med Coll Virginia, Dept Biostat, Richmond, VA USA
[4] Virginia Commonwealth Univ, Med Coll Virginia, Div Neurosurg, Richmond, VA USA
[5] Univ Rotterdam, Erasmus MC, Dept Neurol Surg, Rotterdam, Netherlands
关键词
acute traumatic brain injury; CONSORT; covanate adjustment; randomized clinical trials; reporting; subgroup analysis; systematic review;
D O I
10.1227/01.NEU.0000186039.57548.96
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
OBJECTIVE: Few randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the field of traumatic brain injury (TBI) have shown a significant treatment benefit. We critically reviewed the use of two types of secondary analyses, covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis, which are common in TBI trials. METHODS: We performed a systematic, review of therapeutic phase III RCTs, including adult patients with acute, moderate-to-severe TBI. Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) at >= 3 months as outcome, and >= 50 patients per arm were required. We compared the actual reporting of covariate adjustment and subgroup analyses with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) recommendations. Likewise, we reviewed six protocols of large multicenter RCTs and compared planned and reported subgroups. RESULTS: We identified 18 RCTs (n = 6439). Sixteen trials used GOS at 6 months as outcome. Five RCTs reported covariate adjustment. The number of covariates was limited (<= 5), most frequently including age. Many covariates were outcome predicus tors. Four RCTs reported only adjusted treatment effects as the main efficacy parameter. Eleven RCTs reported subgroup analyses. Several subgroup factors (<= 7, mainly outcome predictors) and outcomes (<= 4) were included. The highest total number of subgroups was 15, and only three RCTs completely pre-specified subgroups. Notably, 10 of 11 RCTs performed inappropriate separate subgroup analyses. Of 11 RCTs, 5 gave subgroups the same emphasis as the overall effect. Reported subgroup analyses were insufficiently described, and clearly differed from those planned in the protocol. CONCLUSION: The reported covariate adjustment and subgroup analyses from TBI trials had several methodological shortcomings. Appropriate performance and reporting of covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis should be considerably improved in future TBI trials because interpretation of treatment benefits may be misleading otherwise.
引用
收藏
页码:1244 / 1253
页数:10
相关论文
共 51 条
[1]   The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration [J].
Altman, DG ;
Schulz, KF ;
Moher, D ;
Egger, M ;
Davidoff, F ;
Elbourne, D ;
Gotzsche, PC ;
Lang, T .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2001, 134 (08) :663-694
[2]   Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials [J].
Assmann, SF ;
Pocock, SJ ;
Enos, LE ;
Kasten, LE .
LANCET, 2000, 355 (9209) :1064-1069
[3]   A TRIAL OF THE EFFECT OF NIMODIPINE ON OUTCOME AFTER HEAD-INJURY [J].
BAILEY, I ;
BELL, A ;
GRAY, J ;
GULLAN, R ;
HEISKANAN, O ;
MARKS, PV ;
MARSH, H ;
MENDELOW, DA ;
MURRAY, G ;
OHMAN, J ;
QUAGHEBEUR, G ;
SINAR, J ;
SKENE, A ;
TEASDALE, G ;
WATERS, A .
ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA, 1991, 110 (3-4) :97-105
[4]   Promising strategies to minimize secondary brain injury after head trauma [J].
Bayir, H ;
Clark, RSB ;
Kochanek, PM .
CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2003, 31 (01) :S112-S117
[5]  
BRAAKMAN R, 1994, J NEUROSURG, V80, P797
[6]   MEGADOSE STEROIDS IN SEVERE HEAD-INJURY - RESULTS OF A PROSPECTIVE DOUBLE-BLIND CLINICAL-TRIAL [J].
BRAAKMAN, R ;
SCHOUTEN, HJA ;
BLAAUWVANDISHOECK, M ;
MINDERHOUD, JM .
JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 1983, 58 (03) :326-330
[7]   Subgroup analyses in randomized trials: risks of subgroup-specific analyses; power and sample size for the interaction test [J].
Brookes, ST ;
Whitely, E ;
Egger, M ;
Smith, GD ;
Mulheran, PA ;
Peters, TJ .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2004, 57 (03) :229-236
[8]  
BULLOCK MR, 2002, NEUROSURG FOCUS
[9]   Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials -: Comparison of Protocols to published articles [J].
Chan, AW ;
Hróbjartsson, A ;
Haahr, MT ;
Gotzsche, PC ;
Altman, DG .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2004, 291 (20) :2457-2465
[10]  
Choi S C, 1998, J Biopharm Stat, V8, P367, DOI 10.1080/10543409808835246