首页> 外文期刊>Trials >Accounting for center in the Early External Cephalic Version trials: an empirical comparison of statistical methods to adjust for center in a multicenter trial with binary outcomes
【24h】

Accounting for center in the Early External Cephalic Version trials: an empirical comparison of statistical methods to adjust for center in a multicenter trial with binary outcomes

机译:在早期外部头颅版本试验中考虑中心:在具有二元结果的多中心试验中调整中心的统计方法的经验比较

获取原文
           

摘要

Background Clustering of outcomes at centers involved in multicenter trials is a type of center effect. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement recommends that multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should account for center effects in their analysis, however most do not. The Early External Cephalic Version (EECV) trials published in 2003 and 2011 stratified by center at randomization, but did not account for center in the analyses, and due to the nature of the intervention and number of centers, may have been prone to center effects. Using data from the EECV trials, we undertook an empirical study to compare various statistical approaches to account for center effect while estimating the impact of external cephalic version timing (early or delayed) on the outcomes of cesarean section, preterm birth, and non-cephalic presentation at the time of birth. Methods The data from the EECV pilot trial and the EECV2 trial were merged into one dataset. Fisher’s exact method was used to test the overall effect of external cephalic version timing unadjusted for center effects. Seven statistical models that accounted for center effects were applied to the data. The models included: i) the Mantel-Haenszel test, ii) logistic regression with fixed center effect and fixed treatment effect, iii) center-size weighted and iv) un-weighted logistic regression with fixed center effect and fixed treatment-by-center interaction, iv) logistic regression with random center effect and fixed treatment effect, v) logistic regression with random center effect and random treatment-by-center interaction, and vi) generalized estimating equations. Results For each of the three outcomes of interest approaches to account for center effect did not alter the overall findings of the trial. The results were similar for the majority of the methods used to adjust for center, illustrating the robustness of the findings. Conclusions Despite literature that suggests center effect can change the estimate of effect in multicenter trials, this empirical study does not show a difference in the outcomes of the EECV trials when accounting for center effect. Trial registration The EECV2 trial was registered on 30 July 30 2005 with Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN 56498577 .
机译:背景参与多中心试验的中心的结果聚类是一种中心效应。 《综合报告试验标准声明》建议,多中心随机对照试验(RCT)应在其分析中考虑中心效应,但是大多数没有。在2003年和2011年发布的早期外部头颅版本(EECV)试验按中心进行了分层,但没有考虑分析的中心,并且由于干预的性质和中心的数量,可能倾向于产生中心效应。我们使用EECV试验的数据,进行了一项实证研究,比较了各种统计方法来解释中心效应,同时估计了外部头颅时机(早或迟)对剖宫产,早产和非头颅结局的影响出生时的演示文稿。方法将EECV试验和EECV2试验的数据合并为一个数据集。费舍尔的精确方法用于测试未经中心效果调整的外部头枕时机的整体效果。七个解释中心效应的统计模型被应用于数据。这些模型包括:i)Mantel-Haenszel检验,ii)具有固定中心效应和固定治疗效果的逻辑回归,iii)中心尺寸加权和iv)具有固定中心效应和固定中心治疗的非加权逻辑回归交互作用; iv)具有随机中心效应和固定处理效应的逻辑回归; v)具有随机中心效应和按中心随机处理的逻辑回归;以及vi)广义估计方程。结果对于感兴趣的三个结果中的每一个,考虑中心效应的方法均未改变试验的总体结果。大多数用于调整中心的方法的结果都相似,说明了结果的可靠性。结论尽管有文献表明中心效应可以改变多中心试验中效应的估计,但该实证研究在考虑中心效应时并未显示EECV试验结果的差异。试验注册EECV2试验于2005年7月30日在“当前对照试验”中注册:ISRCTN 56498577。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号