Randomised controlled trials and clinical maternity care: Moving on from intention-to-treat and other simplistic analyses of efficacy

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Volumn 13, Issue , 2013, Pages

  AW, Welsh ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b ROYAL HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN   (Australia)

Author keywords

Clinical effectiveness; Clinical efficacy; Instrumental variable; ITT; Method effectiveness; RCT

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTENTION TO TREAT ANALYSIS; MATERNAL CARE; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); THERAPY EFFECT;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; INTENTION TO TREAT ANALYSIS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OBSTETRICS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84872268676     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712393     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-15     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Fisher RA, Mackenzie WA. Studies in Crop Variation. 11. The Manurial Response of Different Potato Varieties. J Agr Sci 1923, 13:311-320.
2. Hill AB. The environment and disease: association or causation?. Proc R Soc Med 1965, 58:295-300. 1898525, 14283879.
3. Hofler M. The Bradford Hill considerations on causality: a counterfactual perspective. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology 2005, 2:11. 10.1186/1742-7622-2-11, 1291382, 16269083.
4. Phillips CV, Goodman KJ. The missed lessons of Sir Austin Bradford Hill. Epidemiol Perspect Innov: EP + I 2004, 1(1):3. 10.1186/1742-5573-1-3, 3351730, 22472125.
5. The Cochrane Collaboration Further issues in meta-analysis: Intention to treat issues 2002, The Cochrane Collaboration open learning material, Accessed: http://www.cochrane-net.org/openlearning/html/mod14-4.htm. Access date: January 17th 2003, The Cochrane Collaboration.
6. Fisher LD, Dixon DO, Herson J, Frankowski RF. Analysis of randomized clinical trials: intention to treat. Statistical Issues in Drug Research and Development 1990, 331-344. New York: Marcel Dekker, Pearce KE.
7. Cuzick J, Edwards R, Segnan N. Adjusting for non-compliance and contamination in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 1997, 16(9):1017-1029. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19970515)16:9<1017::AID-SIM508>3.0.CO;2-V, 9160496.
8. Lachin JM. Statistical considerations in the intent-to-treat principle. Control Clin Trials 2000, 21(3):167-189. 10.1016/S0197-2456(00)00046-5, 10822117.
9. Horvitz-Lennon M, O'Malley AJ, Frank RG, Normand SL. Improving traditional intention-to-treat analyses: a new approach. Psychol Med 2005, 35(7):961-970. 10.1017/S0033291705004551, 16045063.
10. Sheiner LB, Rubin DB. Intention-to-treat analysis and the goals of clinical trials. Clin Pharm Ther 1995, 57(1):6-15.
11. Sussman JB, Hayward RA. An IV for the RCT: using instrumental variables to adjust for treatment contamination in randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2010, 340:c2073. 10.1136/bmj.c2073, 3230230, 20442226.
12. Miladinovic B, Kumar A, Hozo I, Djulbegovic B. Instrumental variable meta-analysis of individual patient data: application to adjust for treatment non-compliance. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011, 11:55. 10.1186/1471-2288-11-55, 3117817, 21510899.
13. Hernan MA, Hernandez-Diaz S. Beyond the intention-to-treat in comparative effectiveness research. Clin Trials 2012, 9(1):48-55. 10.1177/1740774511420743, 21948059.
14. Toh S, Hernan MA. Causal inference from longitudinal studies with baseline randomization. Int J Biostat 2008, 4(1):1-32. Article 22.
15. Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys 2004, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
16. White IR, Babiker AG, Walker S, Darbyshire JH. Randomization-based methods for correcting for treatment changes: examples from the Concorde trial. Stat Med 1999, 18(19):2617-2634. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19991015)18:19<2617::AID-SIM187>3.0.CO;2-E, 10495460.
17. McNamee R. Intention to treat, per protocol, as treated and instrumental variable estimators given non-compliance and effect heterogeneity. Stat Med 2009, 28(21):2639-2652. 10.1002/sim.3636, 19579227.
18. Sterne JA, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, Wood AM, Carpenter JR. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ 2009, 338:b2393. 10.1136/bmj.b2393, 2714692, 19564179.
19. Goetghebeur E, Loeys T. Beyond intention to treat. Epidemiol Rev 2002, 24(1):85-90. 10.1093/epirev/24.1.85, 12119861.
20. Hannah ME, Whyte H, Hannah WJ, Hewson S, Amankwah K, Cheng M, Gafni A, Guselle P, Helewa M, Hodnett ED, et al. Maternal outcomes at 2 years after planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the international randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004, 191(3):917-927. 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.08.004, 15467565.
21. Whyte H, Hannah ME, Saigal S, Hannah WJ, Hewson S, Amankwah K, Cheng M, Gafni A, Guselle P, Helewa M, et al. Outcomes of children at 2 years after planned cesarean birth versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the International Randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004, 191(3):864-871. 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.06.056, 15467555.
22. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet 2000, 356(9239):1375-1383. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02840-3, 11052579.
23. Glezerman M. Five years to the term breech trial: the rise and fall of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006, 194(1):20-25. 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.08.039, 16389006.
24. Lawson GW. The term breech trial ten years on: primum non nocere?. Birth 2012, 39(1):3-9. 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2011.00507.x, 22369600.
25. Howell CJ, Kidd C, Roberts W, Upton P, Lucking L, Jones PW, Johanson RB. A randomised controlled trial of epidural compared with non-epidural analgesia in labour. BJOG 2001, 108(1):27-33.
26. Hodnett ED, Downe S, Edwards N, Walsh D. Home-like versus conventional institutional settings for birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, 8:CD000012.
27. Fahy K, Tracy SK. Critique of cochrane systematic review of home-like setting for birth. Int J Evid Based Healthcare 2007, 5(3):360-364.
28. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010, 340:c869. 10.1136/bmj.c869, 2844943, 20332511.
29. Ghimire SM, Kyung EPD, Kang WP, Kim EAPPDB. Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals. Trials 2012, 13(1):77. 10.1186/1745-6215-13-77, 3469340, 22676267.
30. Hewitt CE, Torgerson DJ, Miles JN. Is there another way to take account of noncompliance in randomized controlled trials?. CMAJ 2006, 175(4):347. 10.1503/cmaj.051625, 1534095, 16908892.
31. Wiens BL, Zhao W. The role of intention to treat in analysis of noninferiority studies. Clin Trials 2007, 4(3):286-291. 10.1177/1740774507079443, 17715258.
32. Porta N, Bonet C, Cobo E. Discordance between reported intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2007, 60(7):663-669. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.09.013, 17573981.
33. Chene G, Morlat P, Leport C, Hafner R, Dequae L, Charreau I, Aboulker JP, Luft B, Aubertin J, Vilde JL, et al. Intention-to-treat vs. on-treatment analyses of clinical trial data: experience from a study of pyrimethamine in the primary prophylaxis of toxoplasmosis in HIV-infected patients. ANRS 005/ACTG 154 Trial Group. Control Clin Trials 1998, 19(3):233-248. 10.1016/S0197-2456(97)00145-1, 9620807.
34. Ten Have TR, Normand SL, Marcus SM, Brown CH, Lavori P, Duan N. Intent-to-Treat vs. Non-Intent-to-Treat Analyses under Treatment Non-Adherence in Mental Health Randomized Trials. Psychiatric annals 2008, 38(12):772-783. 10.3928/00485713-20081201-10, 2921714, 20717484.
35. Grootendorst P. A review of instrumental variables estimation of treatment effects in the applied health sciences. Health Serv Outcomes Res Method 2007, 7:159-179.
36. Brookhart MA, Rassen JA, Schneeweiss S. Instrumental variable methods in comparative safety and effectiveness research. Pharmacoepidem Dr S 2010, 19(6):537-554.
37. Glymour MM, Tchetgen EJ, Robins JM. Credible Mendelian randomization studies: approaches for evaluating the instrumental variable assumptions. Am J Epidemiol 2012, 175(4):332-339. 10.1093/aje/kwr323, 22247045.
38. Little RJ, Long Q, Lin X. A comparison of methods for estimating the causal effect of a treatment in randomized clinical trials subject to noncompliance. Biometrics 2009, 65(2):640-649. 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2008.01066.x, 18510650.
39. Marcus S, Gibbons R. Estimating the efficacy of receiving treatment in randomized clinical trials with noncompliance. J Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol 2001, 2:247-258.
40. Dunn G, Maracy M, Tomenson B. Estimating treatment effects from randomized clinical trials with noncompliance and loss to follow-up: the role of instrumental variable methods. Stat Methods Med Res 2005, 14(4):369-395. 10.1191/0962280205sm403oa, 16178138.
41. Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, Treweek S, Furberg CD, Altman DG, Tunis S, Bergel E, Harvey I, Magid DJ, et al. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. CMAJ 2009, 180(10):E47-E57. 10.1503/cmaj.090523, 2679824, 19372436.