Hypothesis testing in neurosurgical trials

False claims of equivalence in the neurosurgical trauma literature: prevalence and associated factors-a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Research quality within the neurosurgical field remains suboptimal. Therefore, many studies published in the neurosurgical literature lack enough statistical power to establish the presence or absence of clinically important differences between treatment arms. The field of neurotrauma deals with additional challenges, with fewer financial incentives and restricted resources in low-income and middle-income countries with the highest burden of neurotrauma diseases. In this systematic review, we aim to estimate the prevalence of false claims of equivalence in the neurosurgical trauma literature and identify its predictive factors.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses recommendations were followed. Randomised clinical trials that enrolled only traumatic brain injury patients and investigated any type of intervention (surgical or non-surgical) will be eligible for inclusion. The MEDLINE/PubMed database will be searched for articles in English published from January 1960 to July 2020 in 15 top-ranked journals. A false claim of equivalence will be identified by insufficient power to detect a clinically meaningful effect: for categorical outcomes, a difference of at least 25% and 50%, and for continuous outcomes, a Cohen's d of at least 0.5 and 0.8. Using the number of patients in each treatment arm and the minimum effect sizes to be detected, the power of each study will be calculated with the assumption of a two-tailed alpha that equals 0.05. Standardised differences between the groups with and without a false claim of equivalence will be calculated, and the variables with a standardised difference equal or above 0.2 and 0.5 will be considered weakly and strongly associated with false claims of equivalence, respectively. The data analysis will be blinded to the authors and institutions of the studies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will not involve primary data collection. Therefore, formal ethical approval will not be required. The final systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at appropriate conferences.

Learning from past mistakes: assessing trial quality, power and eligibility in non-renal systemic lupus erythematosus randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the post hoc study power of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the treatment of non-renal SLE and to determine the generalizability of these RCTs using an SLE database.

METHODS

RCTs in non-renal SLE were identified using PubMed (1975-2007). Inclusion/exclusion criteria, trial quality (5-point scale) and results of each study were recorded. The inclusion/exclusion criteria were compared with an SLE database to determine the proportion of patients from the database who would theoretically be eligible for these trials. For each negative study, we calculated the post hoc study power. We also looked for temporal improvements of trials in the literature and examined if pharmaceutical involvement influenced trial quality.

RESULTS

Sixty-four articles were included; the mean power of 30 negative studies was 24.6 +/- s.e.m. 3.9% (range 2.5-81.1%). Only one study had a power > 80%. Overall, potential eligibility of SLE patients in the database was 45.1 +/- s.e.m. 3.6%. Only 14 studies (21.9%) were of good quality. Fortunately, RCT quality is improving over time (trials <1995, compared with 1996-2002 and >2003; P < 0.001). Trials with pharmaceutical involvement had a significantly higher number of enrollees and better study quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Negative RCTs in SLE were mostly underpowered but the generalizability of these trials was high. Determination of study power and the impact of eligibility criteria on generalizability of study results are crucial in the design of clinical trials to ensure applicability to clinical practice.

Type II error in the spine surgical literature

STUDY DESIGN

A literature review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the frequency of potential type II errors published in the spine surgical literature.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The randomized controlled trial is the strongest clinical evidence available in investigational medicine. Unfortunately, it is common for randomized controlled trials published in peer-reviewed journals not to report a primary question or a sample size calculation. When the null hypothesis is accepted and the power of a study is unreported, the validity of a study's findings may be significantly limited. To our knowledge, the spine literature has not been appraised to determine the frequency of type II errors. METHODS.: A literature search was conducted of MED-LINE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases, using the key words of "spine" and "surgery" between 1967 and 2002. Trials were included if they were of a 2-group randomized controlled trial design, which reported a nonsignificant difference in the primary outcome. The frequency of reporting the primary outcome and sample size calculation was determined. The sample size was assessed to determine whether the trial had sufficient patients to detect a 10%, 25%, and 35% relative difference in the primary outcome for a power of 80%.

RESULTS

A total of 37 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Six studies reported a sample size calculation (17%). Of the remaining 31 studies, 5 explicitly stated a primary outcome (14%). The mean type II error (beta error) was 82%.

CONCLUSION

The spine surgical literature is plagued with a high potential for type II error. A trial's methodology should be scrutinized to prevent misinterpretation of the results.

Pain syndromes in patients with cancer

A series of common pain syndromes in patients with pain and cancer includes pain associated with direct tumor infiltration, pain resulting from cancer therapy, and pain unrelated to the cancer or cancer therapy. Appropriate management is dependent on their careful evaluation.