Reporting of randomized factorial trials was frequently inadequate

Brennan C Kahan, Michael Tsui, Vipul Jairath, Anna Mae Scott, Douglas G Altman, Elaine Beller, Diana Elbourne

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Factorial designs can allow efficient evaluation of multiple treatments within a single trial. We evaluated the design, analysis, and reporting in a sample of factorial trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of 2x2 factorial trials evaluating health-related interventions and outcomes in humans. Using MEDLINE, we identified articles published between January 2015 and March 2018. We randomly selected 100 articles for inclusion.

RESULTS: Few trials (22%) provided a rationale for using a factorial design. Only 63 trials (63%) assessed the interaction for the primary outcome, and 39/63 (62%) made a further assessment for at least one secondary outcome. 12/63 trials (19%) identified a significant interaction for the primary outcome, and 16/39 trials (41%) for at least one secondary outcome. Inappropriate methods of analysis to protect against potential negative effects from interactions were common, with 18 trials (18%) choosing the analysis method based on a preliminary test for interaction, and 13% (n=10/75) of those conducting a factorial analysis including an interaction term in the model.

CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of factorial trials was often suboptimal, and assessment of interactions was poor. Investigators often used inappropriate methods of analysis to try to protect against adverse effects of interactions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)52-59
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume117
Early online date1 Oct 2019
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 1 Oct 2019

Fingerprint

MEDLINE
Research Personnel
Health

Cite this

Kahan, Brennan C ; Tsui, Michael ; Jairath, Vipul ; Scott, Anna Mae ; Altman, Douglas G ; Beller, Elaine ; Elbourne, Diana. / Reporting of randomized factorial trials was frequently inadequate. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2020 ; Vol. 117. pp. 52-59.
@article{a6ecca343af34f2d9c2ecc70fbe7951c,
title = "Reporting of randomized factorial trials was frequently inadequate",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: Factorial designs can allow efficient evaluation of multiple treatments within a single trial. We evaluated the design, analysis, and reporting in a sample of factorial trials.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of 2x2 factorial trials evaluating health-related interventions and outcomes in humans. Using MEDLINE, we identified articles published between January 2015 and March 2018. We randomly selected 100 articles for inclusion.RESULTS: Few trials (22{\%}) provided a rationale for using a factorial design. Only 63 trials (63{\%}) assessed the interaction for the primary outcome, and 39/63 (62{\%}) made a further assessment for at least one secondary outcome. 12/63 trials (19{\%}) identified a significant interaction for the primary outcome, and 16/39 trials (41{\%}) for at least one secondary outcome. Inappropriate methods of analysis to protect against potential negative effects from interactions were common, with 18 trials (18{\%}) choosing the analysis method based on a preliminary test for interaction, and 13{\%} (n=10/75) of those conducting a factorial analysis including an interaction term in the model.CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of factorial trials was often suboptimal, and assessment of interactions was poor. Investigators often used inappropriate methods of analysis to try to protect against adverse effects of interactions.",
author = "Kahan, {Brennan C} and Michael Tsui and Vipul Jairath and Scott, {Anna Mae} and Altman, {Douglas G} and Elaine Beller and Diana Elbourne",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.",
year = "2019",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.018",
language = "English",
volume = "117",
pages = "52--59",
journal = "Journal of Chronic Diseases",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Reporting of randomized factorial trials was frequently inadequate. / Kahan, Brennan C; Tsui, Michael; Jairath, Vipul; Scott, Anna Mae; Altman, Douglas G; Beller, Elaine; Elbourne, Diana.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 117, 01.01.2020, p. 52-59.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reporting of randomized factorial trials was frequently inadequate

AU - Kahan, Brennan C

AU - Tsui, Michael

AU - Jairath, Vipul

AU - Scott, Anna Mae

AU - Altman, Douglas G

AU - Beller, Elaine

AU - Elbourne, Diana

N1 - Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.

PY - 2019/10/1

Y1 - 2019/10/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE: Factorial designs can allow efficient evaluation of multiple treatments within a single trial. We evaluated the design, analysis, and reporting in a sample of factorial trials.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of 2x2 factorial trials evaluating health-related interventions and outcomes in humans. Using MEDLINE, we identified articles published between January 2015 and March 2018. We randomly selected 100 articles for inclusion.RESULTS: Few trials (22%) provided a rationale for using a factorial design. Only 63 trials (63%) assessed the interaction for the primary outcome, and 39/63 (62%) made a further assessment for at least one secondary outcome. 12/63 trials (19%) identified a significant interaction for the primary outcome, and 16/39 trials (41%) for at least one secondary outcome. Inappropriate methods of analysis to protect against potential negative effects from interactions were common, with 18 trials (18%) choosing the analysis method based on a preliminary test for interaction, and 13% (n=10/75) of those conducting a factorial analysis including an interaction term in the model.CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of factorial trials was often suboptimal, and assessment of interactions was poor. Investigators often used inappropriate methods of analysis to try to protect against adverse effects of interactions.

AB - OBJECTIVE: Factorial designs can allow efficient evaluation of multiple treatments within a single trial. We evaluated the design, analysis, and reporting in a sample of factorial trials.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of 2x2 factorial trials evaluating health-related interventions and outcomes in humans. Using MEDLINE, we identified articles published between January 2015 and March 2018. We randomly selected 100 articles for inclusion.RESULTS: Few trials (22%) provided a rationale for using a factorial design. Only 63 trials (63%) assessed the interaction for the primary outcome, and 39/63 (62%) made a further assessment for at least one secondary outcome. 12/63 trials (19%) identified a significant interaction for the primary outcome, and 16/39 trials (41%) for at least one secondary outcome. Inappropriate methods of analysis to protect against potential negative effects from interactions were common, with 18 trials (18%) choosing the analysis method based on a preliminary test for interaction, and 13% (n=10/75) of those conducting a factorial analysis including an interaction term in the model.CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of factorial trials was often suboptimal, and assessment of interactions was poor. Investigators often used inappropriate methods of analysis to try to protect against adverse effects of interactions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073760696&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.018

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.018

M3 - Review article

VL - 117

SP - 52

EP - 59

JO - Journal of Chronic Diseases

JF - Journal of Chronic Diseases

SN - 0895-4356

ER -