Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols
Open Access
- 4 December 2008
- Vol. 337 (dec04 1), a2299
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a2299
Abstract
Objective To evaluate how often sample size calculations and methods of statistical analysis are pre-specified or changed in randomised trials. Design Retrospective cohort study. Data source Protocols and journal publications of published randomised parallel group trials initially approved in 1994-5 by the scientific-ethics committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, Denmark (n=70). Main outcome measure Proportion of protocols and publications that did not provide key information about sample size calculations and statistical methods; proportion of trials with discrepancies between information presented in the protocol and the publication. Results Only 11/62 trials described existing sample size calculations fully and consistently in both the protocol and the publication. The method of handling protocol deviations was described in 37 protocols and 43 publications. The method of handling missing data was described in 16 protocols and 49 publications. 39/49 protocols and 42/43 publications reported the statistical test used to analyse primary outcome measures. Unacknowledged discrepancies between protocols and publications were found for sample size calculations (18/34 trials), methods of handling protocol deviations (19/43) and missing data (39/49), primary outcome analyses (25/42), subgroup analyses (25/25), and adjusted analyses (23/28). Interim analyses were described in 13 protocols but mentioned in only five corresponding publications. Conclusion When reported in publications, sample size calculations and statistical methods were often explicitly discrepant with the protocol or not pre-specified. Such amendments were rarely acknowledged in the trial publication. The reliability of trial reports cannot be assessed without having access to the full protocols.Keywords
This publication has 50 references indexed in Scilit:
- Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting BiasPLOS ONE, 2008
- Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent EfficacyNew England Journal of Medicine, 2008
- Waiving confidentiality for the greater goodBMJ, 2006
- Trial protocols at the BMJBMJ, 2004
- A Taxpayer-Funded Clinical Trials Registry and Results DatabasePLoS Medicine, 2004
- Analyzing incomplete longitudinal clinical trial dataBiostatistics, 2004
- Analyzing incomplete longitudinal clinical trial dataBiostatistics, 2004
- Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized TrialsJAMA, 2004
- Are trust doctors the new lost tribe?BMJ, 2002
- Reporting on methods of subgroup analysis in clinical trials: a survey of four scientific journalsBrazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 2001