Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2013 Mar 27:11:84.
doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-84.

Reporting of analyses from randomized controlled trials with multiple arms: a systematic review

Affiliations
Review

Reporting of analyses from randomized controlled trials with multiple arms: a systematic review

Gabriel Baron et al. BMC Med. .

Abstract

Background: Multiple-arm randomized trials can be more complex in their design, data analysis, and result reporting than two-arm trials. We conducted a systematic review to assess the reporting of analyses in reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with multiple arms.

Methods: The literature in the MEDLINE database was searched for reports of RCTs with multiple arms published in 2009 in the core clinical journals. Two reviewers extracted data using a standardized extraction form.

Results: In total, 298 reports were identified. Descriptions of the baseline characteristics and outcomes per group were missing in 45 reports (15.1%) and 48 reports (16.1%), respectively. More than half of the articles (n = 171, 57.4%) reported that a planned global test comparison was used (that is, assessment of the global differences between all groups), but 67 (39.2%) of these 171 articles did not report details of the planned analysis. Of the 116 articles reporting a global comparison test, 12 (10.3%) did not report the analysis as planned. In all, 60% of publications (n = 180) described planned pairwise test comparisons (that is, assessment of the difference between two groups), but 20 of these 180 articles (11.1%) did not report the pairwise test comparisons. Of the 204 articles reporting pairwise test comparisons, the comparisons were not planned for 44 (21.6%) of them. Less than half the reports (n = 137; 46%) provided baseline and outcome data per arm and reported the analysis as planned.

Conclusions: Our findings highlight discrepancies between the planning and reporting of analyses in reports of multiple-arm trials.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study screening process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Nature of intervention arms in three-arm randomized controlled trials.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Cook RJ, Farewell VT. Multiplicity considerations in the design and analysis of clinical trials. J R Statistic Soc A. 1996;159(1):93–110. doi: 10.2307/2983471. - DOI
    1. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. Points to consider on multiplicity issued in clinical trials. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guidelin....
    1. Freidlin B, Korn EL, Gray R, Martin A. Multi-arm clinical trials of new agents: some design considerations. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(14):4368–4371. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0325. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jung SH, George SL. Between-arm comparisons in randomized Phase II trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2009;19(3):456–468. doi: 10.1080/10543400902802391. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Proschan MA. A multiple comparison procedure for three- and four-armed controlled clinical trials. Stat Med. 1999;18(7):787–798. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19990415)18:7<787::AID-SIM77>3.0.CO;2-M. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources