Developing guidance for a risk-proportionate approach to blinding statisticians within clinical trials: a mixed methods study.

Blinding Clinical trials Clinical trials unit Mixed methods Stakeholder meeting Statisticians

Journal

Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
31 Jan 2023
Historique:
received: 25 05 2022
accepted: 07 12 2022
entrez: 1 2 2023
pubmed: 2 2 2023
medline: 3 2 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Existing guidelines recommend statisticians remain blinded to treatment allocation prior to the final analysis and that any interim analyses should be conducted by a separate team from the one undertaking the final analysis. However, there remains substantial variation in practice between UK Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) when it comes to blinding statisticians. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop guidance to advise CTUs on a risk-proportionate approach to blinding statisticians within clinical trials. This study employed a mixed methods approach involving three stages: (I) a quantitative study using a cohort of 200 studies (from a major UK funder published between 2016 and 2020) to assess the impact of blinding statisticians on the proportion of trials reporting a statistically significant finding for the primary outcome(s); (II) a qualitative study using focus groups to determine the perspectives of key stakeholders on the practice of blinding trial statisticians; and (III) combining the results of stages I and II, along with a stakeholder meeting, to develop guidance for UK CTUs. After screening abstracts, 179 trials were included for review. The results of the primary analysis showed no evidence that involvement of an unblinded trial statistician was associated with the likelihood of statistically significant findings being reported, odds ratio (OR) 1.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.13). Six focus groups were conducted, with 37 participants. The triangulation between stages I and II resulted in developing 40 provisional statements. These were rated independently by the stakeholder group prior to the meeting. Ten statements reached agreement with no agreement on 30 statements. At the meeting, various factors were identified that could influence the decision of blinding the statistician, including timing, study design, types of intervention and practicalities. Guidance including 21 recommendations/considerations was developed alongside a Risk Assessment Tool to provide CTUs with a framework for assessing the risks associated with blinding/not blinding statisticians and for identifying appropriate mitigation strategies. This is the first study to develop a guidance document to enhance the understanding of blinding statisticians and to provide a framework for the decision-making process. The key finding was that the decision to blind statisticians should be based on the benefits and risks associated with a particular trial.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Existing guidelines recommend statisticians remain blinded to treatment allocation prior to the final analysis and that any interim analyses should be conducted by a separate team from the one undertaking the final analysis. However, there remains substantial variation in practice between UK Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) when it comes to blinding statisticians. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop guidance to advise CTUs on a risk-proportionate approach to blinding statisticians within clinical trials.
METHODS METHODS
This study employed a mixed methods approach involving three stages: (I) a quantitative study using a cohort of 200 studies (from a major UK funder published between 2016 and 2020) to assess the impact of blinding statisticians on the proportion of trials reporting a statistically significant finding for the primary outcome(s); (II) a qualitative study using focus groups to determine the perspectives of key stakeholders on the practice of blinding trial statisticians; and (III) combining the results of stages I and II, along with a stakeholder meeting, to develop guidance for UK CTUs.
RESULTS RESULTS
After screening abstracts, 179 trials were included for review. The results of the primary analysis showed no evidence that involvement of an unblinded trial statistician was associated with the likelihood of statistically significant findings being reported, odds ratio (OR) 1.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.13). Six focus groups were conducted, with 37 participants. The triangulation between stages I and II resulted in developing 40 provisional statements. These were rated independently by the stakeholder group prior to the meeting. Ten statements reached agreement with no agreement on 30 statements. At the meeting, various factors were identified that could influence the decision of blinding the statistician, including timing, study design, types of intervention and practicalities. Guidance including 21 recommendations/considerations was developed alongside a Risk Assessment Tool to provide CTUs with a framework for assessing the risks associated with blinding/not blinding statisticians and for identifying appropriate mitigation strategies.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
This is the first study to develop a guidance document to enhance the understanding of blinding statisticians and to provide a framework for the decision-making process. The key finding was that the decision to blind statisticians should be based on the benefits and risks associated with a particular trial.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36721215
doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06992-5
pii: 10.1186/s13063-022-06992-5
pmc: PMC9887916
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

71

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s).

Références

Neurology. 1994 Jan;44(1):16-20
pubmed: 8290055
Clin Trials. 2018 Aug;15(4):329-334
pubmed: 29741390
Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med. 2000;1(1):19-21
pubmed: 11714400
Qual Health Res. 2006 Mar;16(3):377-94
pubmed: 16449687
Clin Trials. 2006;3(4):360-5
pubmed: 17060210
Health Technol Assess. 2005 Mar;9(7):1-238, iii-iv
pubmed: 15763038
JAMA. 2004 May 26;291(20):2457-65
pubmed: 15161896
Stat Med. 2004 May 30;23(10):1503-5
pubmed: 15122727
Trials. 2022 Jun 27;23(1):535
pubmed: 35761345
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008 Apr;13(2):92-8
pubmed: 18416914
Can J Surg. 2010 Oct;53(5):345-8
pubmed: 20858381
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898
pubmed: 31462531
Trials. 2014 Nov 21;15:456
pubmed: 25416527
Health Technol Assess. 2015 Feb;19(11):1-138
pubmed: 25671821
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011 Nov;90(5):732-6
pubmed: 21993424

Auteurs

Mais Iflaifel (M)

Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Kirsty Sprange (K)

Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Jennifer Bell (J)

National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Andrew Cook (A)

University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Carrol Gamble (C)

Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Steven A Julious (SA)

School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Edmund Juszczak (E)

Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Louise Linsell (L)

National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Alan Montgomery (A)

Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Christopher Partlett (C)

Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. chris.partlett@nottingham.ac.uk.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH