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

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Welsh AW¹ 

[1] Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Women’s & Children’s Health, University of New South Wales, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia

关键词: Instrumental variable;    Clinical effectiveness;    Clinical efficacy;    Method-effectiveness;    ITT;    RCT;   

Others  :  1151207
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2393-13-15

 received in 2012-08-23, accepted in 2013-01-10,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The obstetrical literature is dominated by Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), with the vast majority being analysed using an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach. Whilst this approach may reflect well the consequence of assignment to therapy and hence the ‘trialists’perspective’, it may fail to address the consequence of actually receiving therapy (the patient’s perspective).

Discussion

This review questions the ubiquitous adherence to the ITT approach, and gives examples of where this may have misled the maternity care professions. It gives an overview of techniques to overcome potential deficiencies in result presentation, using method effectiveness models such as ‘Per Protocol’ (PP) or ‘As-Treated’ (AT) that may give more accurate clinical meaning to the presentation of obstetrical results. It then proceeds to cover the added benefits, considerations and potential pitfalls of the use of Instrumental Variable (IV) models in order to better reflect the clinical context.

Summary

While ITT may achieve statistical purity, it frequently fails to address the true clinical or patient’s perspective. Though more complex and potentially beset by problems of their own, alternative methods of result presentation may better serve the latter aim. Each of the other methods may rely on untestable assumptions and therefore it is wisest that study results are presented in multiple formats to allow for informed reader evaluation.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 AW; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [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.
• [3]Hofler M: The Bradford Hill considerations on causality: a counterfactual perspective. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology 2005, 2:11. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Phillips CV, Goodman KJ: The missed lessons of Sir Austin Bradford Hill. Epidemiol Perspect Innov: EP + I 2004, 1(1):3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [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 webcite. Access date: January 17th 2003
• [6]Fisher LD, Dixon DO, Herson J, Frankowski RF: Analysis of randomized clinical trials: intention to treat. In Statistical Issues in Drug Research and Development. Edited by Pearce KE. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1990:331-344.
• [7]Cuzick J, Edwards R, Segnan N: Adjusting for non-compliance and contamination in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 1997, 16(9):1017-1029.
• [8]Lachin JM: Statistical considerations in the intent-to-treat principle. Control Clin Trials 2000, 21(3):167-189.
• [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]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.
• [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. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Hernan MA, Hernandez-Diaz S: Beyond the intention-to-treat in comparative effectiveness research. Clin Trials 2012, 9(1):48-55.
• [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. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 2004.
• [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.
• [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.
• [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.
• [19]Goetghebeur E, Loeys T: Beyond intention to treat. Epidemiol Rev 2002, 24(1):85-90.
• [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.
• [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.
• [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.
• [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.
• [24]Lawson GW: The term breech trial ten years on: primum non nocere? Birth 2012, 39(1):3-9.
• [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.
• [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. BioMed Central Full Text
• [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.
• [31]Wiens BL, Zhao W: The role of intention to treat in analysis of noninferiority studies. Clin Trials 2007, 4(3):286-291.
• [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.
• [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.
• [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.
• [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.
• [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.
• [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.
• [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.