Search

Background: Multiple surgical procedures in a single patient are relatively common and lead to dependent (clustered) data. This dependency needs to be accounted for in study design and data analysis. A systematic review was performed to assess how clustered data were handled in inguinal hernia trials. The impact of ignoring clustered data was estimated using simulations. Methods: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were reviewed systematically for RCTs published between 2004 and 2013, including patients undergoing unilateral or bilateral inguinal hernia repair. Study characteristics determining the appropriateness of handling clustered data were extracted. Using simulations, various statistical methods accounting for clustered data were compared with an analysis ignoring clustering by assuming 100 hernias, with a varying percentage of patients having bilateral hernias. Results: Of the 50 eligible trials including patients with bilateral hernias, 20 (40 per cent) did not provide information on how they dealt with clustered data and 18 (36 per cent) avoided clustering by assessing the outcome by patient and not by hernia. None of the remaining 12 trials (24 per cent) considered clustering in the design or analysis. In the simulations, ignoring clustering led to an increased type I error rate of up to 12 per cent and to a loss in power of up to 15 per cent, depending on whether the patient or the hernia was the randomization unit. Conclusion: Clustering was rarely considered in inguinal hernia trials. The simulations underline the importance of considering clustering as part of the statistical analysis to avoid false‐positive and false‐negative results, and hence inappropriate study conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Information about the impact of cancer treatments on patients' quality of life (QoL) is of paramount importance to patients and treating oncologists. Cancer trials that do not specify QoL as an outcome or fail to report collected QoL data, omit crucial information for decision making. To estimate the magnitude of these problems, we investigated how frequently QoL outcomes were specified in protocols of cancer trials and subsequently reported. Design: Retrospective cohort study of RCT protocols approved by six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We compared protocols to corresponding publications, which were identified through literature searches and investigator surveys. Results: Of the 173 cancer trials, 90 (52%) specified QoL outcomes in their protocol, 2 (1%) as primary and 88 (51%) as secondary outcome. Of the 173 trials, 35 (20%) reported QoL outcomes in a corresponding publication (4 modified from the protocol), 18 (10%) were published but failed to report QoL outcomes in the primary or a secondary publication, and 37 (21%) were not published at all. Of the 83 (48%) trials that did not specify QoL outcomes in their protocol, none subsequently reported QoL outcomes. Failure to report pre-specified QoL outcomes was not associated with industry sponsorship (versus non-industry), sample size, and multicentre (versus single centre) status but possibly with trial discontinuation. Conclusions: About half of cancer trials specified QoL outcomes in their protocols. However, only 20% reported any QoL data in associated publications. Highly relevant information for decision making is often unavailable to patients, oncologists, and health policymakers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]