Corticosteroids to Reduce Inflammation in Severe Pancreatitis (CRISP) protocol and statistical analysis plan: a prospective, multicentre, double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Acute pancreatitis is a common disease which, in its severe form, is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Currently, there is no specific therapy known to attenuate organ failure in severe pancreatitis and treatment consists primarily of supportive care. Corticosteroids have been shown to be beneficial in disease processes associated with systemic inflammation and could potentially improve outcomes in severe acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

The Corticosteroids to Reduce Inflammation in Severe Pancreatitis (CRISP) trial is a multi-centre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial that aims to determine the impact of corticosteroids versus placebo on organ injury in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Patients are randomized to receive 100 mg of hydrocortisone parenterally versus matching placebo every 8 h for 3 days. Clinical and laboratory data are collected at the time of study enrollment, at 24, 48 and 72 h. The primary end-point for the trial is the difference in 72-h change in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score between hydrocortisone and placebo groups. Additional key secondary outcomes include ventilator free days and 28-day mortality.

DISCUSSION

This study will add to the evidence base in the treatment of severe acute pancreatitis. The results will inform clinical practice and future studies in the field. Trial registration number The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05160506). It was posted on December 16th, 2021. The study protocol was approved by the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Committee on Clinical Investigation (CCI) (protocol 2021 P-000803).

Clinical statistical analysis plan for the ACCURE trial: the effect of appendectomy on the clinical course of ulcerative colitis, a randomised international multicentre trial

BACKGROUND

The primary treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) is medical therapy using a standard step-up approach. An appendectomy might modulate the clinical course of UC, decreasing the incidence of relapses and reducing need for medication. The objective of the ACCURE trial is to assess the efficacy of laparoscopic appendectomy in addition to standard medical treatment in maintaining remission in UC patients. This article presents the statistical analysis plan to evaluate the outcomes of the ACCURE trial.

DESIGN AND METHODS

The ACCURE trial was designed as a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. UC patients with a new diagnosis or a disease relapse within the past 12 months, treated with 5-ASA, corticosteroids, or immunomodulators until complete clinical and endoscopic remission (defined as total Mayo score < 3 with endoscopic subscore of 0 or 1), were counselled for inclusion. Also, patients previously treated with biologicals who had a washout period of at least 3 months were considered for inclusion. Patients were randomised (1:1) to laparoscopic appendectomy plus maintenance treatment or a control group (maintenance therapy only). The primary outcome is the 1-year UC relapse rate (defined as a total Mayo-score ≥ 5 with endoscopic subscore of 2 or 3, or clinically as an exacerbation of symptoms and rectal bleeding or FCP > 150 or intensified medical therapy other than 5-ASA therapy). Secondary outcomes include number of relapses per patient, time to first relapse, disease activity, number of colectomies, medication usage, and health-related quality of life.

DISCUSSION

The ACCURE trial will provide comprehensive evidence whether adding an appendectomy to maintenance treatment is superior to maintenance treatment only in maintaining remission in UC patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Register (NTR) NTR2883 . Registered May 3, 2011. ISRCTN, ISRCTN60945764 . Registered August 12, 2019.

Statistical analysis plan for the PRO B study: open-label, superiority randomised controlled trial of alarm-based patient-reported outcome monitoring in patients with metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

With an increasing collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in oncological patients, there is still a lack of standardised strategies on how to interpret and use these data in patient care. Prior research has shown support for the use of digital PRO monitoring together with alarm systems to notify clinicians when the PRO values are deteriorating. This system has demonstrated advantages in improving HRQoL and increasing survival rates among oncology patients. Hence, we designed the PRO B study, a superiority multi-centre randomised controlled trial, to investigate the effects of alarm-based monitoring in metastatic breast cancer patients in Germany. The study protocol for the PRO B study was published in September 2021, and this manuscript describes a formal statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the PRO B study to improve the transparency and quality of this trial.

METHODS AND DESIGN

The trial aimed to recruit 1000 patients with metastatic breast cancer. However, as of the completion of recruitment on June 15, 2023, we have successfully enrolled 924 patients from 52 breast cancer centres. Patients were 1:1 stratified randomised to the intervention and control groups. App-based PRO questionnaires are sent weekly to the intervention group and every 3 months to the control group. Only patients in the intervention group trigger an alarm if their PRO scores deteriorate, and they are subsequently contacted by the local care team within 48 h. The primary outcome is the fatigue score at 6 months, and secondary outcomes are other HRQoL and overall survival. Evaluation of the superiority of the intervention will be done using a linear mixed model with random intercepts for study centres.

CONCLUSION

This detailed SAP defines the main components of the statistical analysis for the PRO B study to assist the statistician and prevent bias in selecting analysis and reporting findings. Version 1 of the SAP was finalised on January 18, 2024.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS (German Clinical Trials Register) DRKS00024015 . Registered on February 15, 2021.

Efficacy of propofol-supplemented cardioplegia on biomarkers of organ injury in patients having cardiac surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass: a statistical analysis plan for the ProMPT-2 randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The ProMPT-2 trial (Propofol for Myocardial Protection Trial #2) aims to compare the safety and efficacy of low- and high-dose propofol supplementation of the cardioplegia solution during adult cardiac surgery versus sham supplementation. This update presents the statistical analysis plan, detailing how the trial data will be analysed and presented. Outlined analyses are in line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and the statistical analysis plan has been written prior to database lock and the final analysis of trial data to avoid reporting bias (following recommendations from the International Conference on Harmonisation of Good Clinical Practice).

METHODS/DESIGN

ProMPT-2 is a multi-centre, blinded, parallel three-group randomised controlled trial aiming to recruit 240 participants from UK cardiac surgery centres to either sham cardioplegia supplementation, low dose (6 µg/ml) or high dose (12 µg/ml) propofol cardioplegia supplementation. The primary outcome is cardiac-specific troponin T levels (a biomarker of cardiac injury) measured during the first 48 h following surgery. The statistical analysis plan describes the planned analyses of the trial primary and secondary outcomes in detail, including approaches to deal with missing data, multiple testing, violation of model assumptions, withdrawals from the trial, non-adherence with the treatment and other protocol deviations. It also outlines the planned sensitivity analyses and exploratory analyses to be performed.

DISCUSSION

This manuscript prospectively describes, prior to the completion of data collection and database lock, the analyses to be undertaken for the ProMPT-2 trial to reduce risk of reporting and data-driven analyses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN ISRCTN15255199. Registered on 26 March 2019.

Statistical analysis plan for the Recovery-focused Community support to Avoid readmissions and improve Participation after Stroke randomised controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Unplanned hospital presentations may occur post-stroke due to inadequate preparation for transitioning from hospital to home. The Recovery-focused Community support to Avoid readmissions and improve Participation after Stroke (ReCAPS) trial was designed to test the effectiveness of receiving a 12-week, self-management intervention, comprising personalised goal setting with a clinician and aligned educational/motivational electronic messages. Primary outcome is as follows: self-reported unplanned hospital presentations (emergency department/admission) within 90-day post-randomisation. We present the statistical analysis plan for this trial.

METHODS/DESIGN

Participants are randomised 1:1 in variable block sizes, with stratification balancing by age and level of baseline disability. The sample size was 890 participants, calculated to detect a 10% absolute reduction in the proportion of participants reporting unplanned hospital presentations/admissions, with 80% power and 5% significance level (two sided). Recruitment will end in December 2023 when funding is expended, and the sample size achieved will be used. Logistic regression, adjusted for the stratification variables, will be used to determine the effectiveness of the intervention on the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes will be evaluated using appropriate regression models. The primary outcome analysis will be based on intention to treat. A p-value ≤ 0.05 will indicate statistical significance. An independent Data Safety and Monitoring Committee has routinely reviewed the progress and safety of the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

This statistical analysis plan ensures transparency in reporting the trial outcomes. ReCAPS trial will provide novel evidence on the effectiveness of a digital health support package post-stroke.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ACTRN12618001468213. Registered on August 31, 2018. SAP version 1.13 (October 12 2023) Protocol version 1.12 (October 12, 2022) SAP revisions Nil.

Statistical analysis plan for a cluster randomised controlled trial to compare screening, feedback and intervention for child anxiety problems to usual school practice: identifying Child Anxiety Through Schools-identification to intervention (iCATS-i2i)

BACKGROUND

The Identifying Child Anxiety Through Schools-identification to intervention (iCATS-i2i) trial is being conducted to establish whether 'screening and intervention', consisting of usual school practice plus a pathway comprising screening, feedback and a brief parent-led online intervention (OSI: Online Support and Intervention for child anxiety), bring clinical and health economic benefits compared to usual school practice and assessment only - 'usual school practice', for children aged 8-9 years in the following: (1) the 'target population', who initially screen positive for anxiety problems according to a two-item parent-report child anxiety questionnaire - iCATS-2, and (2) the 'total population', comprising all children in participating classes. This article describes the detailed statistical analysis plan for the trial.

METHODS AND DESIGN

iCATS-i2i is a definitive, superiority, pragmatic, school-based cluster randomised controlled trial (with internal pilot), with two parallel groups. Schools are randomised 1:1 to receive either screening and intervention or usual school practice. This article describes the following: trial objectives and outcomes; statistical analysis principles, including detailed estimand information necessary for aligning trial objectives, conduct, analyses and interpretation when there are different analysis populations and outcome measures to be considered; and planned main analyses, sensitivity and additional analyses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ISRCTN76119074. Registered on 4 January 2022.

Initial treatment with a single capsule containing half-dose quadruple therapy versus standard-dose dual therapy in hypertensive patients (QUADUAL): statistical analysis plan for a randomized, blinded, crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Combined antihypertensive therapy has obvious advantages over single drug therapy. Hypertension guidelines fully affirm the efficacy of dual combination in initial antihypertensive therapy. Recent studies have also pointed out that the quadruple combination of very low-dose antihypertensive drugs is superior to single drugs. However, whether low-dose quadruple therapy is better than dual combination is unknown.

METHODS/DESIGN

A randomized double-blind crossover clinical trial will be conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of low-dose quadruple antihypertensives (irbesartan 75 mg + metoprolol 23.75 mg + amlodipine 2.5 mg + indapamide 1.25 mg) with standard-dose dual antihypertensives (irbesartan 150 mg + amlodipine 5 mg) in the initial treatment of patients with mild to moderate hypertension (140-179/90-109 mmHg). Ninety patients are required and will be recruited and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to two crossover groups. Two groups will receive a different combination therapy for 4 weeks, then switch to the other combination therapy for 4 weeks, with a 2-week wash-out. Antihypertensive effects and related adverse effects of the two antihypertensive combination treatments will be compared. The primary outcome, i.e., mean 24-h systolic blood pressure in ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, will be assessed via linear mixed-effects model.

DISCUSSION

This statistical analysis plan will be confirmed prior to blind review and data lock before un-blinding and is sought to increase the validity of the QUADUAL trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05377203. Registered May 11, 2022, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05377203 .

Update of statistical analysis plan for: Integration of smoking cessation into standard treatment for patients receiving opioid agonist therapy who are smoking tobacco: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (ATLAS4LAR)

This protocol paper presents an updated statistical analysis plan of the protocol of a randomised controlled trial. The randomised controlled trial investigates the effect of integrating smoking cessation interventions at outpatient opioid agonist therapy (OAT) clinics for persons with opioid dependency receiving OAT medication. The intervention group receives weekly follow-up including a short behavioural intervention and provision of nicotine replacement products. The control group receives standard treatment. The duration of the intervention is 16 weeks and the follow-up was completed by the end of October 2023. The primary outcome is defined as the proportion of participants reducing the number of cigarettes smoked by at least a 50% at week 16 of the intervention period. The primary outcome will be analysed according to intention-to-treat principles. Missing outcome data will be set equal to the baseline values. Development and reporting of the statistical analysis plan follow the Guidelines for the Content of Statistical Analysis Plans in Clinical Trials.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05290025. Registered on 22 March 2022.

A randomized double-blind clinical trial on safety and efficacy of tauroursodeoxycholic acid (TUDCA) as add-on treatment in patients affected by amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS): the statistical analysis plan of TUDCA-ALS trial

BACKGROUND

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a highly debilitating neurodegenerative condition. Despite recent advancements in understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying ALS, there have been no significant improvements in therapeutic options for ALS patients in recent years. Currently, there is no cure for ALS, and the only approved treatment in Europe is riluzole, which has been shown to slow the disease progression and prolong survival by approximately 3 months. Recently, tauroursodeoxycholic acid (TUDCA) has emerged as a promising and effective treatment for neurodegenerative diseases due to its neuroprotective activities.

METHODS

The ongoing TUDCA-ALS study is a double-blinded, parallel arms, placebo-controlled, randomized multicenter phase III trial with the aim to assess the efficacy and safety of TUDCA as add-on therapy to riluzole in patients with ALS. The primary outcome measure is the treatment response defined as a minimum of 20% improvement in the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) slope during the randomized treatment period (18 months) compared to the lead-in period (3 months). Randomization will be stratified by country. Primary analysis will be conducted based on the intention-to-treat principle through an unadjusted logistic regression model. Patient recruitment commenced on February 22, 2019, and was closed on December 23, 2021. The database will be locked in September 2023.

DISCUSSION

This paper provides a comprehensive description of the statistical analysis plan in order to ensure the reproducibility of the analysis and avoid selective reporting of outcomes and data-driven analysis. Sensitivity analyses have been included in the protocol to assess the impact of intercurrent events related to the coronavirus disease 2019. By focusing on clinically meaningful and robust outcomes, this trial aims to determine whether TUDCA can be effective in slowing the disease progression in patients with ALS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03800524 . Registered on January 11, 2019.

Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the identification and treatment of hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome with protection, paralysis, and proning: A type-1 hybrid stepped-wedge cluster randomised effectiveness-implementation study

Objective

To describe a study protocol and statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the identification and treatment of hypoxemic respiratory failure (HRF) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with protection, paralysis, and proning (TheraPPP) study prior to completion of recruitment, electronic data retrieval, and analysis of any data.

Design

TheraPPP is a stepped-wedge cluster randomised study evaluating a care pathway for HRF and ARDS patients. This is a type-1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation study design evaluating both intervention effectiveness and implementation; however primarily powered for the effectiveness outcome.

Setting

Seventeen adult intensive care units (ICUs) across Alberta, Canada.

Participants

We estimate a sample size of 18816 mechanically ventilated patients, with 11424 patients preimplementation and 7392 patients postimplementation. We estimate 2688 sustained ARDS patients within our study cohort.

Intervention

An evidence-based, stakeholder-informed, multidisciplinary care pathway called Venting Wisely that standardises diagnosis and treatment of HRF and ARDS patients.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome is 28-day ventilator-free days (VFDs). The primary analysis will compare the mean 28-day VFDs preimplementation and postimplementation using a mixed-effects linear regression model. Prespecified subgroups include sex, age, HRF, ARDS, COVID-19, cardiac surgery, body mass index, height, illness acuity, and ICU volume.

Results

This protocol and SAP are reported using the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials guidance and the Guidelines for the Content of Statistical Analysis Plans in Clinical Trials. The study received ethics approval and was registered (ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT04744298) prior to patient enrolment.

Conclusions

TheraPPP will evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of an HRF and ARDS care pathway.

Master statistical analysis plan: attractive targeted sugar bait phase III trials in Kenya, Mali, and Zambia

This manuscript is a master statistical analysis plan for each of three-cluster randomized controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy of attractive targeted sugar baits (ATSB) described in an already published protocol. The master SAP contains an overarching plan for all three trials, which can be adapted to trial-specific circumstances. The primary objective of the trials is to evaluate the efficacy of ATSB in the presence of universal vector control coverage with insecticide-treated nets (ITN) or indoor residual spraying (IRS) after two transmission seasons on clinical malaria incidence as compared with universal vector control coverage with ITN or IRS alone. The primary outcome measure is the incidence rate of clinical malaria, assessed in cohorts aged 12 months to less than 15 years (≥ 5 years to 15 years in Mali) during monthly follow-up visits. The primary unadjusted analysis will be conducted on the intention-to-treat analysis population without adjustment for any anticipated confounding variables. The primary outcome will be analyzed using a multi-level model constructed on a generalized linear model framework with a Poisson likelihood and a log link function. Random intercepts will be included for each study cluster and a fixed effect for study-arm. The analyst will be blinded to study arm assignment. Several secondary outcomes will be analyzed, as well as a pooled analysis (individual patient data meta-analysis) across the three trial sites. Additionally, a standard meta-analysis is expected to be conducted using combined data from all sites.

The Promotoer, a brain-computer interface-assisted intervention to promote upper limb functional motor recovery after stroke: a statistical analysis plan for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Electroencephalography (EEG)-based brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) allow to modulate the sensorimotor rhythms and are emerging technologies for promoting post-stroke motor function recovery. The Promotoer study aims to assess the short and long-term efficacy of the Promotoer system, an EEG-based BCI assisting motor imagery (MI) practice, in enhancing post-stroke functional hand motor recovery. This paper details the statistical analysis plan of the Promotoer study.

METHODS

The Promotoer study is a randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, single-centre, superiority trial, with two parallel groups and a 1:1 allocation ratio. Subacute stroke patients are randomized to EEG-based BCI-assisted MI training or to MI training alone (i.e. no BCI). An internal pilot study for sample size re-assessment is planned. The primary outcome is the effectiveness of the Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment (UE-FMA) score. Secondary outcomes include clinical, functional, and user experience scores assessed at the end of intervention and at follow-up. Neurophysiological assessments are also planned. Effectiveness formulas have been specified, and intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations have been defined. Statistical methods for comparisons of groups and for development of a predictive score of significant improvement are described. Explorative subgroup analyses and methodology to handle missing data are considered.

DISCUSSION

The Promotoer study will provide robust evidence for the short/long-term efficacy of the Promotoer system in subacute stroke patients undergoing a rehabilitation program. Moreover, the development of a predictive score of response will allow transferring of the Promotoer system to optimal clinical practice. By carefully describing the statistical principles and procedures, the statistical analysis plan provides transparency in the analysis of data.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04353297 . Registered on April 15, 2020.

Detailed statistical analysis plan for a secondary Bayesian analysis of the SafeBoosC-III trial: a multinational, randomised clinical trial assessing treatment guided by cerebral oximetry monitoring versus usual care in extremely preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Extremely preterm infants have a high mortality and morbidity. Here, we present a statistical analysis plan for secondary Bayesian analyses of the pragmatic, sufficiently powered multinational, trial-SafeBoosC III-evaluating the benefits and harms of cerebral oximetry monitoring plus a treatment guideline versus usual care for such infants.

METHODS

The SafeBoosC-III trial is an investigator-initiated, open-label, randomised, multinational, pragmatic, phase III clinical trial with a parallel-group design. The trial randomised 1601 infants, and the frequentist analyses were published in April 2023. The primary outcome is a dichotomous composite outcome of death or severe brain injury. The exploratory outcomes are major neonatal morbidities associated with neurodevelopmental impairment later in life: (1) bronchopulmonary dysplasia; (2) retinopathy of prematurity; (3) late-onset sepsis; (4) necrotising enterocolitis; and (5) number of major neonatal morbidities (count of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, retinopathy of prematurity, and severe brain injury). The primary Bayesian analyses will use non-informed priors including all plausible effects. The models will use a Hamiltonian Monte Carlo sampler with 1 chain, a sampling of 10,000, and at least 25,000 iterations for the burn-in period. In Bayesian statistics, such analyses are referred to as 'posteriors' and will be presented as point estimates with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs), encompassing the most probable results based on the data, model, and priors selected. The results will be presented as probability of any benefit or any harm, Bayes factor, and the probability of clinical important benefit or harm. Two statisticians will analyse the blinded data independently following this protocol.

DISCUSSION

This statistical analysis plan presents a secondary Bayesian analysis of the SafeBoosC-III trial. The analysis and the final manuscript will be carried out and written after we publicise the primary frequentist trial report. Thus, we can interpret the findings from both the frequentists and Bayesian perspective. This approach should provide a better foundation for interpreting of our findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.org, NCT03770741. Registered on 10 December 2018.

Statistical analysis plan for the LAKANA trial: a cluster-randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, parallel group, three-arm clinical trial testing the effects of mass drug administration of azithromycin on mortality and other outcomes among 1-11-month-old infants in Mali

BACKGROUND

The Large-scale Assessment of the Key health-promoting Activities of two New mass drug administration regimens with Azithromycin (LAKANA) trial in Mali aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of azithromycin (AZI) mass drug administration (MDA) to 1-11-month-old infants as well as the impact of the intervention on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and mechanisms of action of azithromycin. To improve the transparency and quality of this clinical trial, we prepared this statistical analysis plan (SAP).

METHODS/DESIGN

LAKANA is a cluster randomized trial that aims to address the mortality and health impacts of biannual and quarterly AZI MDA. AZI is given to 1-11-month-old infants in a high-mortality setting where a seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) program is in place. The participating villages are randomly assigned to placebo (control), two-dose AZI (biannual azithromycin-MDA), and four-dose AZI (quarterly azithromycin-MDA) in a 3:4:2 ratio. The primary outcome of the study is mortality among the intention-to-treat population of 1-11-month-old infants. We will evaluate relative risk reduction between the study arms using a mixed-effects Poisson model with random intercepts for villages, using log link function with person-years as an offset variable. We will model outcomes related to secondary objectives of the study using generalized linear models with considerations on clustering.

CONCLUSION

The SAP written prior to data collection completion will help avoid reporting bias and data-driven analysis for the primary and secondary aims of the trial. If there are deviations from the analysis methods described here, they will be described and justified in the publications of the trial results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04424511 . Registered on 11 June 2020.

Posting of clinical trial results and other critical information from completed medicines trials on ClinicalTrials.gov

PURPOSE

Clinical trials transparency requires trial registration and the posting of results on a public register. US regulations also require the posting of protocols and statistical analysis plans (SAPs). For US Federal agency funded trials to be started on or after 21 January 2019, informed consent forms (ICFs) must also be posted. Posting these documents is not mandatory in other countries. We aimed to assess compliance with US regulations of trials conducted in the US or in other countries with respect to ICFs, protocols, SAPs, and results.

METHODS

This cross-sectional analysis (27 April 2023) comprised completed medicines trials to be started on or after 21 January 2019 registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Trial data were registered by funder type (i.e., 'US federal agencies', industry, and 'all others') and development phase.

RESULTS

Of 5,584 trials, 40% were conducted solely in the US. 47% and 12% of US and non-US trials had posted results. Some 40% of US trials had posted protocols and SAPs as did 9% of trials conducted in other countries. Only 10% (US) and 2% (other countries) of trials had posted ICFs. When the margin of the last 2 and 12 months after primary completion date were considered in the analysis, ICF posting rate did not change, but posting results increased to 64% for US trials. 'US Federal agencies' funded trials were significantly more likely to post ICFs than industry [OR 23.9 (12.5-45.7; <.001)] or 'all others' [OR 3.16 (1.79-5.56; <.001)].

CONCLUSION

Future interventions should be considered to encourage timely posting of trial results and information.

Statistical analysis plan and protocol updates for Gestational diabetes in Uganda and India: Design and Evaluation of Educational Films for Improving Screening and Self-management (GUIDES) trial

BACKGROUND

Timely detection and management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have been identified as a high priority for policymakers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The GUIDES trial will evaluate a package of three interconnected film-based interventions aimed at improving the timely detection and management of GDM. The protocol for this trial has previously been published; this publication outlines the statistical analysis plan for the trial.

METHODS AND DESIGN

The GUIDES study is a multi-country cluster-randomised controlled trial consisting of one trial conducted in Uganda and one in India (30 clusters in each country). Mixed effects models will be used to compare the primary study outcomes of the proportion of women who are tested for GDM between 24 and 32 weeks of pregnancy and the mean fasting blood sugar of women with GDM at 34-week follow-up while accounting for clustering. Secondary analyses will compare the proportion of women with self-reported GDM diagnosis at 32 weeks of pregnancy and the proportion of women with adverse perinatal outcomes related to GDM up to 4 weeks after birth in each trial arm.

TRIAL STATUS AND DISCUSSION

Follow-up is expected to end in March 2023 in Uganda and in May 2023 in India. Analyses will be carried out following this statistical analysis plan in the month following trial completion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03937050. Registered on 3 May 2019. Clinical Trials Registry India CTRI/2020/02/023605. Registered on 26 February 2020.

A template for the authoring of statistical analysis plans

A number of principal investigators may have limited access to biostatisticians, a lack of biostatistical training, or no requirement to complete a timely statistical analysis plan (SAP). SAPs completed early will identify design or implementation weak points, improve protocols, remove the temptation for p-hacking, and enable proper peer review by stakeholders considering funding the trial. An SAP completed at the same time as the study protocol might be the only comprehensive method for at once optimizing sample size, identifying bias, and applying rigor to study design. This ordered corpus of SAP sections with detailed definitions and a variety of examples represents an omnibus of best practice methods offered by biostatistical practitioners inside and outside of industry. The article presents a protocol template for clinical research design, enabling statisticians, from beginners to advanced.

Biomarker-guided duration of antibiotic treatment in children hospitalised with confirmed or suspected bacterial infection: statistical analysis plan for the BATCH trial and PRECISE sub-study

INTRODUCTION

The BATCH trial is a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to compare procalcitonin-guided management of severe bacterial infection in children with current management. PRECISE is a mechanistic sub-study embedded into the BATCH trial. This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for the BATCH trial and PRECISE sub-study.

METHODS

The BATCH trial will assess the effectiveness of an additional procalcitonin test in children (aged 72 h to 18 years) hospitalised with suspected or confirmed bacterial infection to guide antimicrobial prescribing decisions. Participants will be enrolled in the trial from randomisation until day 28 follow-up. The co-primary outcomes are duration of intravenous antibiotic use and a composite safety outcome. Target sample size is 1942 patients, based on detecting a 1-day reduction in intravenous antibiotic use (90% power, two-sided) and on a non-inferiority margin of 5% risk difference in the composite safety outcome (90% power, one-sided), while allowing for up to 10% loss to follow-up.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics will be summarised overall, by trial arm, and by whether patients were recruited before or after the pause in recruitment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the primary analysis, duration of intravenous antibiotic use will be tested for superiority using Cox regression, and the composite safety outcome will be tested for non-inferiority using logistic regression. The intervention will be judged successful if it reduces the duration of intravenous antibiotic use without compromising safety. Secondary analyses will include sensitivity analyses, pre-specified subgroup analyses, and analysis of secondary outcomes. Two sub-studies, including PRECISE, involve additional pre-specified subgroup analyses. All analyses will be adjusted for the balancing factors used in the randomisation, namely centre and patient age.

CONCLUSION

We describe the statistical analysis plan for the BATCH trial and PRECISE sub-study, including definitions of clinical outcomes, reporting guidelines, statistical principles, and analysis methods. The trial uses a design with co-primary superiority and non-inferiority endpoints. The analysis plan has been written prior to the completion of follow-up.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

BATCH: ISRCTN11369832, registered 20 September 2017, doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN11369832.

PRECISE

ISRCTN14945050, registered 17 December 2020, doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN14945050.

Statistical analysis plans for two randomised controlled trials of the Narrative Experiences Online (NEON) Intervention: impact of receiving recorded mental health recovery narratives on quality of life in people experiencing psychosis (NEON) and people experiencing non-psychosis mental health problems (NEON-O)

BACKGROUND

Mental health recovery narratives are a first-hand account of an individual's recovery from mental health distress, access to narratives can aid recovery. The NEON Intervention is a web-application providing access to a managed collection of narratives. We present the statistical analysis plan for assessing the effectiveness of the NEON Intervention in improving quality of life at 1-year post-randomisation. We pay particular focus on the statistical challenges encountered due to the online nature of this trial.

METHODS AND DESIGN

The NEON Intervention is assessed in two trial populations, one for people with experience of psychosis in the last 5 years, and mental health distress in the last six months (NEON Trial) and one for people with experience of non-psychosis mental health problems (NEON-O Trial). Both NEON trials are two-arm randomised controlled superiority trials comparing the effectiveness of the NEON Intervention with usual care. The target sample size is 684 randomised participants for NEON and 994 for NEON-O. Participants were randomised centrally in a 1:1 ratio.

RESULTS

The primary outcome is the mean score of subjective items on the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality-of-Life questionnaire (MANSA) at 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes are scores from the Herth Hope Index, Mental Health Confidence Scale, Meaning of Life questionnaire, CORE-10 questionnaire and Euroqol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L).

CONCLUSION

This manuscript is the statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the NEON trials. Any post hoc analysis, such as those requested by journal reviewers will be clearly labelled as such in the final trial reporting. Trial registration Both trials were prospectively registered. NEON Trial: ISRCTN11152837, registered on 13 August 2018. NEON-O Trial: ISRCTN63197153, registered on 9 January 2020.

Statistical analysis plan for HOMESIDE: a randomised controlled trial for home-based family caregiver-delivered music and reading interventions for people living with dementia

BACKGROUND

Most people with dementia live in the community, not in residential care. Therefore, quality informal care for them is critical for managing behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). Music therapy has been shown to reduce BPSD. However, no randomised controlled trial has examined the effects of music interventions delivered by caregivers in home settings. The HOME-based caregiver-delivered music intervention for people living with dementia (HOMESIDE) trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a 12-week music intervention in addition to standard care for BPSD. This article describes the statistical analysis plan.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

HOMESIDE is a large, pragmatic international three-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial. Dyads (persons with dementia and caregiver) in Australia, Germany, the UK, Poland and Norway were randomised to receive music and standard care, reading and standard care or standard care alone. The primary outcome is BPSD (proxy) of the person living with dementia, measured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Questionnaire (NPI-Q) at 90 and 180 days post-randomisation. Longitudinal analysis will compare NPI-Q severity between music and standard care versus standard care alone. Secondary outcomes include quality of life and depression (both person with dementia and caregiver), cognition (person with dementia only), distress, resilience, competence and caregiver-patient relationship (caregiver only). Treatment effects will be obtained at 90 and 180 days post-randomisation, where applicable. Safety outcomes (adverse events, hospitalisations, deaths) will be summarised.

DISCUSSION

This statistical analysis plan provides a detailed methodology for the analysis of HOMESIDE and will improve the validity of the study and reduce the potential for bias.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618001799246. Registered on November 05, 2018.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov NCT03907748. Registered on April 09, 2019.

Lenient rate control versus strict rate control for atrial fibrillation: a statistical analysis plan for the Danish Atrial Fibrillation (DanAF) randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

A key decision in the treatment of atrial fibrillation is choosing between a rhythm control strategy or a rate control strategy as the main strategy. When choosing rate control, the optimal heart rate target is uncertain. The Danish Atrial Fibrillation trial is a randomized, multicenter, two-group, superiority trial comparing strict rate control versus lenient rate control in patients with either persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at inclusion. To prevent bias arising from selective reporting and data-driven analyses, we developed a predefined description of the statistical analysis.

METHODS

The primary outcome of this trial is the physical component score of the SF-36 questionnaire. A total of 350 participants will be enrolled based on a minimal important difference of 3 points on the physical component score of the SF-36 questionnaire, a standard deviation of 10 points, a statistical power of 80% (beta of 20%), and an acceptable risk of type I error of 5%. All secondary, exploratory, and echocardiographic outcomes will be hypothesis-generating. The analyses of all outcomes will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. We will analyze continuous outcomes using linear regression adjusting for "site," type of atrial fibrillation at inclusion (persistent/ permanent), left ventricular ejection fraction (≥ 40% or < 40%), and the baseline value of the outcome (all as fixed effects). We define our threshold for statistical significance as a p-value of 0.05 and assessments of clinical significance will be based on the anticipated intervention effects defined in the sample size and power estimations. Thresholds for both statistical and clinical significance will be assessed according to the 5-step procedure proposed by Jakobsen and colleagues.

DISCUSSION

This statistical analysis plan will be published prior to enrolment completion and before any data are available and is sought to increase the validity of the DANish Atrial Fibrillation trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04542785. Registered on Sept 09, 2020.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a progressive, individualised walking and education program for prevention of low back pain recurrence in adults: statistical analysis plan for the WalkBack randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Exercise for the prevention of low back pain recurrences is recommended, but under-researched. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a walking program for preventing low back pain recurrence remains unknown. This a priori statistical analysis plan describes the methods of analysis for the WalkBack trial.

METHODS

WalkBack is a prospectively registered, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. The aim is to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 6-month progressive and individualised walking and education program (intervention) for the prevention of low back pain recurrences, compared to a no-treatment control group. The primary outcome is days to the first recurrence of an episode of activity-limiting low back pain. Key secondary outcomes include days to any recurrence of low back pain, days to a care-seeking recurrence of low back pain, disability level, health-related quality of life, costs associated with low back pain and adverse events. All participants will be followed for a minimum of 12 months. Analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Cox regression is planned to assess the effects for the outcomes of time to activity-limiting, minimal and care-seeking recurrence. Hazard ratios and median survival times with 95% confidence intervals will be calculated. The effect of the intervention on continuous outcomes will be estimated with repeated-measure linear mixed models. An economic evaluation will be performed from the societal perspective for recurrence prevented (yes/no) and quality-adjusted life years. The proportion of adverse events between groups will be compared using Fisher's exact test.

DISCUSSION

The WalkBack trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a walking intervention to prevent low back pain recurrences. This statistical analysis plan provides transparency on the analysis of the trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

WalkBack - Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a progressive individualised walking and education program for the prevention of a recurrence of low back pain. ACTRN12619001134112 . Date Registered: 14/08/2019.

Statistical analysis plan for the motor neuron disease systematic multi-arm adaptive randomised trial (MND-SMART)

BACKGROUND

MND-SMART is a platform, multi-arm, multi-stage, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial recruiting people with motor neuron disease. Initially, the treatments memantine and trazodone will each be compared against placebo, but other investigational treatments will be introduced into the trial later. The co-primary outcomes are the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale Revised (ALS-FRS-R) functional outcome, which is assessed longitudinally, and overall survival.

METHODS

Initially in MND-SMART, participants are randomised 1:1:1 via a minimisation algorithm to receive placebo or one of the two investigational treatments with up to 531 to be randomised in total. The comparisons between each research arm and placebo will be conducted in four stages, with the opportunity to cease further randomisations to poorly performing research arms at the end of stages 1 or 2. The final ALS-FRS-R analysis will be at the end of stage 3 and final survival analysis at the end of stage 4. The estimands for the co-primary outcomes are described in detail. The primary analysis of ALS-FRS-R at the end of stages 1 to 3 will involve fitting a normal linear mixed model to the data to calculate a mean difference in rate of ALS-FRS-R change between each research treatment and placebo. The pairwise type 1 error rate will be controlled, because each treatment comparison will generate its own distinct and separate interpretation. This publication is based on a formal statistical analysis plan document that was finalised and signed on 18 May 2022.

DISCUSSION

In developing the statistical analysis plan, we had to carefully consider several issues such as multiple testing, estimand specification, interim analyses, and statistical analysis of the repeated measurements of ALS-FRS-R. This analysis plan attempts to balance multiple factors, including minimisation of bias, maximising power and precision, and deriving clinically interpretable summaries of treatment effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT Number, 2019-000099-41. Registered 2 October 2019, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=mnd-smart ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04302870 . Registered 10 March 2020.

A Visual Tool to Help Develop a Statistical Analysis Plan for Randomized Trials in Palliative Care

Collaboration with a statistician about the design of a statistical analysis plan can be enhanced by illustrating how statisticians conceptualize their task. This conceptualization can be represented by a directed acyclic graph (DAG), which illustrates the statistician's approach and also provides an actionable tool to assist in the development of the plan.

Heterogeneity in multicentre trial participating centers: lessons from the TOPCAT trial on interpreting trial data for clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered a "gold standard" of evidence, provided they meet rigorous standards in design and execution. Recently, some investigators of the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) trial advocate reanalysis of results, deviating from the statistical analysis plan. We briefly review the rationale by the TOPCAT investigators and implications for interpreting trial data.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Critical examination of existing literature.

RESULTS

The TOPCAT trial showed variation in patient characteristics and outcomes among different geographic regions. The investigators suggest that the observed variation indicated unreliable data, warranting deviation from protocol. That lead to claims of therapeutic effectiveness for populations in select regions. We suggest that some variation is expected in multicentre RCTs and argue that discriminating between natural variation and unreliable data can be challenging. Thus, the warrant for deviation from protocol is not clear.

CONCLUSION

The TOPCAT investigators highlight important concerns about heterogeneity in RCT samples and how that may impact our interpretation of the results. If we are to maintain rigor in the RCT methodology and preserve its status as a reliable form of evidence for clinical practice, we must carefully consider when it is appropriate to deviate from a protocol when analyzing and interpreting trial data.

Minimising Young Children's Anxiety through Schools (MY-CATS): statistical analysis plan for a cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an online parent-led intervention compared with usual school practice for young children identified as at risk for anxiety disorders

BACKGROUND

The Minimising Young Children's Anxiety through Schools (MY-CATS) trial is being conducted to determine whether an online evidence-based parent-guided cognitive behavioural therapy intervention in addition to usual school practice is effective and cost-effective compared with usual school practice in reducing anxiety disorders in children aged 4-7 deemed 'at risk' of anxiety disorders. This update article describes the detailed statistical analysis plan for the MY-CATS trial and reports a review of the underpinning sample size assumptions.

METHODS AND DESIGN

The MY-CATS study is a two-arm, definitive superiority pragmatic parallel group cluster randomised controlled trial in which schools will be randomised 1:1 to receive either the intervention (in addition to usual school practice) or the usual school practice only. This update to the (published) protocol provides a detailed description of the study methods, the statistical principles, the trial population and the planned statistical analyses, including additional analyses comprising instrumental variable regression and mediation analysis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN82398107 . Prospectively registered on 14 January 2021.

Pneumococcal vaccine schedules (PVS) study: a cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial of an alternative versus standard schedule for pneumococcal conjugate vaccination-statistical analysis plan

RATIONALE

The effectiveness of universal immunisation with pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) has been evident in many countries. However, the global impact of PCV is limited by its cost, which has prevented its introduction in several countries. Reducing the cost of PCV programmes may facilitate vaccine introduction in some countries and improve the sustainability of PCV in EPIs in low-income countries when they transition away from subsidised vaccine supply.

METHODS AND DESIGN

PVS is a real-world field trial of an alternative schedule of one dose of PCV scheduled at age 6 weeks with a booster dose at age 9 months (i.e. the alternative '1+1' schedule) compared to the standard schedule of three primary doses scheduled at 6, 10, and 14 weeks of age (i.e. the standard '3+0' schedule). Delivery of the interventions began in late 2019 in 68 geographic clusters and will continue for 4 years. The primary endpoint is the prevalence of nasopharyngeal vaccine-type pneumococcal carriage in children aged 2-260 weeks with clinical pneumonia in year 4. Secondary endpoints are the prevalence of vaccine-type pneumococcal carriage among all ages in year 4 and the incidence of radiological pneumonia in children enrolled to receive the interventions. Additional disease and carriage endpoints are included.

PURPOSE

This statistical analysis plan (SAP) describes the cohorts and populations, and follow-up criteria, to be used in different analyses. The SAP defines the endpoints and describes how adherence to the interventions will be presented. We describe how analyses will account for the effect of clustering and stratified randomisation. The SAP defines the approach to non-inferiority and other analyses. Defining the SAP early in the trial will avoid bias in analyses that may arise from prior knowledge of trial findings.

Sanfu herbal patch applied at acupoints in patients with bronchial asthma: statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Sanfu herbal patch (SHP) is widely used in the prevention and treatment of bronchial asthma in China, but its efficacy and mechanism of action are not completely clear. This trial aims to determine the efficacy of SHP and the underlying mechanism.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will conduct a multi-centre parallel randomised controlled trial consisting of 72 participants with bronchial asthma recruited and randomly allocated at a ratio of 1:1 into two groups. The patients in one group will receive three courses of SHP treatment, and the patients in the other group will receive placebo treatment, with 24 weeks of follow-up evaluation for both groups. The primary outcome, i.e. forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), which refers to the change in FEV1 from the beginning of the baseline to the end of 3 treatment sessions (TSs), will be assessed and compared via Student's t test or the Mann-Whitney U test. Other outcomes will include questionnaire surveys and laboratory indicators. Detailed and complete statistical analyses in a double-blinded fashion will be provided for evaluating this trial.

DISCUSSION

The data we obtain will be examined based on the above statistical analysis, which will help to reduce the risk of external reporting bias and data-driven results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( http://www.chictr.org.cn ), ChiCTR1900024616. Registered on 19 July 2019.

Statistical analysis plan for the stepped wedge clinical trial Healing Right Way-enhancing rehabilitation services for Aboriginal Australians after brain injury

BACKGROUND

Aboriginal Australians are known to suffer high levels of acquired brain injury (stroke and traumatic brain injury) yet experience significant barriers in accessing rehabilitation services. The aim of the Healing Right Way trial is to evaluate a culturally secure intervention for Aboriginal people with newly acquired brain injury to improve their rehabilitation experience and quality of life. Following publication of the trial protocol, this paper outlines the statistical analysis plan prior to locking the database.  METHODS: The trial involves a stepped wedge design with four steps over 3 years. Participants were 108 adult Aboriginal Australians admitted to one of eight hospitals (four rural, four urban) in Western Australia within 6 weeks of onset of a new stroke or traumatic brain injury who consented to follow-up for 26 weeks. All hospital sites started in a control phase, with the intervention assigned to pairs of sites (one metropolitan, one rural) every 26 weeks until all sites received the intervention. The two-component intervention involves training in culturally safe care for hospital sites and enhanced support provided to participants by Aboriginal Brain Injury Coordinators during their hospital stay and after discharge. The primary outcome is quality of life as measured by the Euro QOL-5D-3L VAS. A mixed effects linear regression model will be used to assess the between-group difference at 26 weeks post-injury. The model will control for injury type and severity, age at recruitment and time since commencement of the trial, as fixed effects. Recruitment site and participant will be included as random effects. Secondary outcomes include measurements of function, independence, anxiety and depression, carer strain, allied health occasions of service received and hospital compliance with minimum processes of care based on clinical guidelines and best practice models of care.

DISCUSSION

The trial will provide the first data surrounding the effectiveness of an intervention package for Aboriginal people with brain injury and inform future planning of rehabilitation services for this population. The statistical analysis plan outlines the analyses to be undertaken.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000139279. Registered 30 January, 2018.

Interactions in the 2×2×2 factorial randomised clinical STEPCARE trial and the potential effects on conclusions: a protocol for a simulation study

Background

Randomised clinical trials with a factorial design may assess the effects of multiple interventions in the same population. Factorial trials are carried out under the assumption that the trial interventions have no interactions on outcomes. Here, we present a protocol for a simulation study investigating the consequences of different levels of interactions between the trial interventions on outcomes for the future 2×2×2 factorial designed randomised clinical Sedation, TEmperature, and Pressure after Cardiac Arrest and REsuscitation (STEPCARE) trial in comatose patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Methods

By simulating a multisite trial with 50 sites and 3278 participants, and a presumed six-month all-cause mortality of 60% in the control population, we will investigate the validity of the trial results with different levels of interaction effects on the outcome. The primary simulation outcome of the study is the risks of type-1 and type-2 errors in the simulated scenarios, i.e. at what level of interaction is the desired alpha and beta level exceeded. When keeping the overall risk of type-1 errors ≤ 5% and the risk of type-2 errors ≤ 10%, we will quantify the maximum interaction effect we can accept if the planned sample size is increased by 5% to take into account possible interaction between the trial interventions. Secondly, we will assess how interaction effects influence the minimal detectable difference we may confirm or reject to take into account 5% (small interaction effect), 10% (moderate), or 15% (large) positive interactions in simulations with no ‘true’ intervention effect (type-1 errors) and small (5%), moderate (10%), or large negative interactions (15%) in simulations with ‘true’ intervention effects (type-2 errors). Moreover, we will investigate how much the sample size must be increased to account for a small, moderate, or large interaction effects.

Discussion

This protocol for a simulation study will inform the design of a 2×2×2 factorial randomised clinical trial of how potential interactions between the assessed interventions might affect conclusions. Protocolising this simulation study is important to ensure valid and unbiased results.

Trial registration

Not relevant

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06796-7.

Family-based cognitive behavioural therapy versus family-based relaxation therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder in children and adolescents (the TECTO trial): a statistical analysis plan for the randomised clinical trial

Background

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a debilitating psychiatric disorder which affects up to 3% of children and adolescents. OCD in children and adolescents is generally treated with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), which, in more severely affected patients, can be combined with antidepressant medication. The TECTO trial aims to compare the benefits and harms of family-based CBT (FCBT) versus family-based psychoeducation/relaxation training (FPRT) in children and adolescents aged 8 to 17 years. This statistical analysis plan outlines the planned statistical analyses for the TECTO trial.

Methods

The TECTO trial is an investigator-initiated, independently funded, single-centre, parallel-group, superiority randomised clinical trial. Both groups undergo 14 sessions of 75 min each during a period of 16 weeks with either FCBT or FPRT depending on the allocation. Participants are randomised stratified by age and baseline Children’s Yale–Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS) score. The primary outcome is the CY-BOCS score. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life assessed using KIDSCREEN-10 and adverse events assessed by the Negative Effects Questionnaire (NEQ). Primary and secondary outcomes are assessed at the end of the intervention. Continuous outcomes will be analysed using linear regression adjusted for the stratification variables and baseline value of the continuous outcome. Dichotomous outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression adjusted for the stratification variables. The statistical analyses will be carried out by two independent blinded statisticians.

Discussion

This statistical analysis plan includes a detailed predefined description of how data will be analysed and presented in the main publication before unblinding of study data. Statistical analysis plans limit selective reporting bias. This statistical analysis plan will increase the validity of the final trial results.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03595098. July 23, 2018

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06799-4.

Statistical Analysis Plan for the INTEnsive Care Bundle with Blood Pressure Reduction in Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage Trial: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

The third INTEnsive care bundle with blood pressure Reduction in Acute Cerebral hemorrhage Trial (INTERACT3) is an international, multicenter, stepped-wedge (4 phases/3 steps) cluster randomized trial involving 110 hospitals in mainly low- and middle-income countries during 2017-2022. The aim is to determine the effectiveness of a goal-directed care bundle of intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering, glycemic control, antipyrexia, and anticoagulation reversal treatment versus usual standard of care, in patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). After a "usual care" period, hospitals were randomly allocated to implementing care-bundle protocols for control targets (systolic BP <140 mm Hg; glucose 6.1-7.8/7.8-10.0 mmol/L according to diabetes mellitus status; temperature ≤37.5°C; normalization of anticoagulation). A sample size of 8,360 patients (mean 19 per phase per site) provides 90% power (α = 0.05) for a 5.6% absolute improvement in the primary outcome of scores on the modified Rankin scale at 6 months, analyzed by ordinal logistic regression. A detailed statistical analysis plan (SAP) was developed to prespecify the method of analysis for all outcomes and key variables collected in the trial. The primary analysis will use ordinal logistic regression adjusted for the stepped-wedge design. The SAP also includes planned sensitivity analyses, including covariate adjustments, missing data imputations, and subgroup analysis. This SAP allows transparent, verifiable, and prespecified analyses in consideration of the challenges in conducting the study during the COVID pandemic. It also avoids analysis bias arising from prior knowledge of the findings in determining the benefits and harms of a care bundle in acute ICH.

AZTEC-azithromycin therapy for prevention of chronic lung disease of prematurity: a statistical analysis plan for clinical outcomes

Background

The AZTEC trial is a multi-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of azithromycin to improve survival without development of chronic lung disease of prematurity (CLD) in preterm infants. The statistical analysis plan for the clinical outcomes of the AZTEC trial is described.

Methods and design

A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of a 10-day course of intravenous azithromycin (20 mg/kg for 3 days; 10 mg/kg for 7 days) administered to preterm infants born at < 30 weeks’ gestational age across UK tertiary neonatal units. Following parental consent, infants are randomly allocated to azithromycin or placebo, with allocated treatment starting within 72 h of birth. The primary outcome is survival without moderate/severe CLD at 36 weeks’ postmenstrual age (PMA). Serial respiratory fluid and stool samples are being collected up to 21 days of life. The target sample size is 796 infants, which is based on detecting a 12% absolute difference in survival without moderate/severe CLD at 36 weeks’ PMA (90% power, two-sided alpha of 0.05) and includes 10% loss to follow-up.

Results

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics will be summarised by treatment arm and in total. Categorical data will be summarised by numbers and percentages. Continuous data will be summarised by mean, standard deviation, if data are normal, or median, interquartile range, if data are skewed. Tests of statistical significance will not be undertaken for baseline characteristics. The primary analysis, on the intention to treat (ITT) population, will be analysed using multilevel logistic regression, within a multiple imputation framework. Adjusted odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values will be presented. For all other analyses, the analysis population will be based on the complete case population, which is a modified ITT population. All analyses will be adjusted for gestational age and treatment arm and account for any clustering by centre and/or multiple births as a random effect.

Conclusion

We describe the statistical analysis plan for the AZTEC trial, including the analysis principles, definitions of the key clinical outcomes, methods for primary analysis, pre-specified subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and secondary analysis. The plan has been finalised prior to the completion of recruitment.

Trial registration

ISRCTN registry ISRCTN11650227. Registered on 31 July 2018.

Can patient-led surveillance detect subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas and reduce the need for routinely scheduled follow up? Statistical analysis plan for the MEL-SELF randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The MEL-SELF trial is a randomised controlled trial of patient-led surveillance compared to clinician-led surveillance in people treated for localised cutaneous melanoma (stage 0, I, II). The primary trial aim is to determine if patient led-surveillance compared to clinician-led surveillance increases the proportion of participants who are diagnosed with a new primary or recurrent melanoma at a fast-tracked unscheduled clinic visit. The secondary outcomes include time to diagnosis of any skin cancer, psychosocial outcomes, acceptability, and resource use.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this report is to outline and publish the pre-determined statistical analysis plan before the database lock and the start of analysis.

METHODS/DESIGN

The statistical analysis plan describes the overall analysis principles, including how participants will be included in each analysis, the presentation of the results, adjustments for covariates, the primary and secondary outcomes, and their respective analyses. In addition, we present the planned sensitivity and subgroup analyses. A separate analysis plan will be published for health economic outcomes.

RESULTS

The MEL-SELF statistical analysis plan has been designed to minimize bias in estimating effects of the intervention on primary and secondary outcomes. By pre-specifying analyses, we ensure the study's integrity and believability while enabling the reproducibility of the final analysis.

CONCLUSION

This detailed statistical analysis plan will help to ensure transparency of reporting of results from the MEL-SELF trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12621000176864. Registered 18 February 2021, https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12621000176864.aspx.

Controlled evaLuation of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for COVID-19 respIraTorY disease (CLARITY): statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled Bayesian adaptive sample size trial

The CLARITY trial (Controlled evaLuation of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for COVID-19 respIraTorY disease) is a two-arm, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial being run in India and Australia that investigates the effectiveness of angiotensin receptor blockers in addition to standard care compared to placebo (in Indian sites) with standard care in reducing the duration and severity of lung failure in patients with COVID-19. The trial was designed as a Bayesian adaptive sample size trial with regular planned analyses where pre-specified decision rules will be assessed to determine whether the trial should be stopped due to sufficient evidence of treatment effectiveness or futility. Here, we describe the statistical analysis plan for the trial and define the pre-specified decision rules, including those that could lead to the trial being halted. The primary outcome is clinical status on a 7-point ordinal scale adapted from the WHO Clinical Progression scale assessed at day 14. The primary analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. A Bayesian adaptive trial design was selected because there is considerable uncertainty about the extent of potential benefit of this treatment.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04394117. Registered on 19 May 2020Clinical Trial Registry of India CTRI/2020/07/026831

Version and revisions

Version 1.0. No revisions.

Statistical analysis plan for the OPTIMUM study: optimising immunisation using mixed schedules, an adaptive randomised controlled trial of a mixed whole-cell/acellular pertussis vaccine schedule

Objective

The purpose of this double-blind, randomised, controlled trial is to compare allergic outcomes in children following vaccination with acellular pertussis (aP) antigen (standard of care in Australia) given at 2 months of age versus whole cell pertussis (wP) in the infant vaccine schedule.

Participants

Up to 3000 Australian infants 6 to <12 weeks of age born ≥32 weeks gestation.

Interventions

The intervention is a wP containing vaccine as the first scheduled pertussis vaccine dose instead of an aP containing vaccine.

Outcomes

The primary outcome is a binary indicator of history of IgE-mediated food allergy at the age of 12 months confirmed, where necessary, with an oral food challenge before 18 months of age. Secondary outcomes include (1) history of parent-reported clinician-diagnosed new onset of atopic dermatitis by 6 or 12 months of age with a positive skin prick test to any allergen before 12 months of age, (2) geometric mean concentration in pertussis toxin-specific IgG before and 21 to 35 days after a booster dose of aP at 18 months of age, and (3) sensitisation to at least one allergen by 12 months of age.

Results

Operating characteristics of trial decision rules were evaluated by trial simulation. The selected rules for success and futility approximately maintain type I error of 0.05 and achieved power 0.85 for a reduction in the primary outcome from 10% in the control group to 7% in the intervention group.

Discussion

A detailed, prospective statistical analysis plan (SAP) is presented for this Bayesian adaptive design. The plan was written by the trial statistician and details the study design, pre-specified adaptive elements, decision thresholds, statistical methods, and the simulations used to evaluate the operating characteristics of the trial. Application of this SAP will minimise bias and supports transparent and reproducible research.

Trial registration

Australia & New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000065392. Registered on 12 January 2017

Study protocol

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042838

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at (10.1186/s13063-021-05874-6).

Helmet noninvasive ventilation for COVID-19 patients (Helmet-COVID): statistical analysis plan for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive respiratory support is frequently needed for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). Helmet noninvasive ventilation has multiple advantages over other oxygen support modalities but data about effectiveness are limited.

METHODS

In this multicenter randomized trial of helmet noninvasive ventilation for COVID-19 patients, 320 adult ICU patients (aged ≥14 years or as per local standards) with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen < 200 despite supplemental oxygen with a partial/non-rebreathing mask at a flow rate of 10 L/min or higher) will be randomized to helmet noninvasive ventilation with usual care or usual care alone, which may include mask noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, or standard oxygen therapy. The primary outcome is death from any cause within 28 days after randomization. The trial has 80% power to detect a 15% absolute risk reduction in 28-day mortality from 40 to 25%. The primary outcome will be compared between the helmet and usual care group in the intention-to-treat using the chi-square test. Results will be reported as relative risk  and 95% confidence interval. The first patient was enrolled on February 8, 2021. As of August 1, 2021, 252 patients have been enrolled from 7 centers in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

DISCUSSION

We developed a detailed statistical analysis plan to guide the analysis of the Helmet-COVID trial, which is expected to conclude enrollment in November 2021.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04477668 . Registered on July 20, 2020.

Statistical analysis plan for Better Evidence for Selecting Transplant Fluids (BEST-Fluids): a randomised controlled trial of the effect of intravenous fluid therapy with balanced crystalloid versus saline on the incidence of delayed graft function in deceased donor kidney transplantation

Background

Delayed graft function, or the requirement for dialysis due to poor kidney function, is a frequent complication of deceased donor kidney transplantation that is associated with inferior outcomes. Intravenous fluids with a high chloride content, such as isotonic sodium chloride (0.9% saline), are widely used in transplantation but may increase the risk of poor kidney function. The primary objective of the BEST-Fluids trial is to compare the effect of a balanced low-chloride crystalloid, Plasma-Lyte 148 (Plasmalyte), versus 0.9% saline on the incidence of DGF in deceased donor kidney transplant recipients. This article describes the statistical analysis plan for the trial.

Methods and design

BEST-Fluids is an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, registry-based, multi-centre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Eight hundred patients (adults and children) in Australia and New Zealand with end-stage kidney disease admitted for a deceased donor kidney transplant were randomised to intravenous fluid therapy with Plasmalyte or 0.9% saline in a 1:1 ratio using minimization. The primary outcome is delayed graft function (dialysis within seven days post-transplant), which will be modelled using a log-binomial generalised linear mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, minimization variables, and ischaemic time and a random intercept for study centre. Secondary outcomes including early kidney transplant function (a ranked composite of dialysis duration and the rate of graft function recovery), treatment for hyperkalaemia, and graft survival and will be analysed using a similar modelling approach appropriate for the type of outcome.

Discussion

BEST-Fluids will determine whether Plasmalyte reduces the incidence of DGF and has a beneficial effect on early kidney transplant outcomes relative to 0.9% saline and will inform clinical guidelines on intravenous fluids for deceased donor kidney transplantation. The statistical analysis plan describes the analyses to be undertaken and specified before completion of follow-up and locking the trial databases.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617000358347. Prospectively registered on 8 March 2017

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03829488. Registered on 4 February 2019

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05989-w.

Statistical analysis plan for the Dual mTorc Inhibition in advanCed/recurrent Epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer (of clear cell, endometrioid and high-grade serous type, and carcinosarcoma) trial (DICE)

BACKGROUND

Treatment for ovarian cancer includes platinum-based chemotherapy, but many women become resistant to chemotherapy, becoming platinum-resistant. Standard of care for these women is weekly paclitaxel chemotherapy, but cancers can often become paclitaxel resistant. TAK228, an investigational dual TORC1/2 inhibitor, is an oral therapy that can be added to standard treatment. The DICE trial is a phase II international multicentre, parallel-group, superiority clinical trial with 1:1, open label randomisation which has the aim of investigating the effectiveness of TAK228 plus weekly paclitaxel. The planned sample size is 124 women (62 per treatment arm) with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To outline the planned analyses for DICE in a statistical analysis plan (SAP) before database hard lock and the start of analysis. This ensures that bias is minimised during the analysis phase.

RESULTS

This SAP provides detailed descriptions of the analysis principles and statistical procedures for analysing primary and secondary outcomes of the trial. The primary outcome is overall progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes include progression-free survival (PFS) at 24 weeks, overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), time to progression (TTP), clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 4 months, Cancer Antigen 125 (CA125) response according to Gynaecological Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) criteria, overall survival (OS), safety and tolerability as assessed by adverse events and the quality-of-life questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-OV28). This detailed description includes significance levels, sensitivity analyses and compliance analysis.

DISCUSSION

The DICE trial will determine whether the addition of TAK228 to weekly paclitaxel chemotherapy shows a statistically significant improvement to participant's progression free and overall survival and that the adverse events (AEs) and quality of life (QoL) are not significantly worse than the standard treatment. The study commenced recruitment in September 2018. An interim analysis was performed in early 2021, the results of which advised continuation of the trial. The study recruitment is ongoing and is due to complete by the end of 2021.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03648489 . Registered on 27 August 2018.

Statistical analysis plan: Early mobilization by head-up tilt with stepping versus standard care after severe traumatic brain injury

Background

Early mobilization on a tilt table with stepping versus standard care may be beneficial for patients with severe brain injury, but data from randomized clinical trials are lacking. This detailed statistical analysis plan describes the analyses of data collected in a randomized clinical feasibility trial for early mobilization by head-up tilt with stepping versus standard care after severe traumatic brain injury.

Methods

Primary feasibility outcomes are the proportion of included participants who were randomized out of all screened patients; the proportion of participants allocated to the experimental intervention who received at least 60% of the planned exercise sessions; and safety outcomes such as adverse events and reactions and serious adverse events and reactions. Exploratory clinical outcomes are suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions; and functional outcomes as assessed by the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised at four weeks; Early Functional Ability Scale and Functional Independence Measure at three months. The description includes the statistical analysis plan, including the use of multiple imputations and Trial Sequential Analysis.

Statistical analysis plan for the Early Youth Engagement in first episode psychosis (EYE-2) study: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of implementation, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a team-based motivational engagement intervention to improve engagement

BACKGROUND

Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services improve health outcomes for young people with psychosis in the medium-long term, but 25% of young people disengage in the first 12 months with costs to their mental health, families, society and health services. This study will evaluate the effectiveness of a team-based motivational engagement intervention, the Early Youth Engagement (EYE-2) intervention.

METHODS AND DESIGN

The EYE-2 trial is a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the EYE-2 intervention plus standardised EIP service to standardised EIP service alone, with randomisation at the clinical team (cluster) level. The study aimed to enrol 950 young people (aged 14-35 years) with first episode psychosis in 10 teams per arm.

RESULTS

The primary outcome is time to disengagement: days from the date of allocation to care coordinator to date of the last contact following either refusal to engage with an EIP team or lack of response to EIP contact for 3 consecutive months which will be analysed using a shared frailty model. Secondary outcomes are Health of the Nation Outcome Scale (HoNOS), Process of Recovery Questionnaire (QPR), DIALOG (a service user-reported measure of quality of life and treatment satisfaction) and service use outcomes which will be analysed using mixed effects regression models.

DISCUSSION

This paper is the detailed statistical analysis plan for the EYE-2 trial. Any changes to, or deviations from, this plan will be described and justified in the final trial report.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN 51629746 . Prospectively registered on 7 May 2019. Date assigned 10 May 2019.

Effectiveness of expiratory technique and induced sputum in obtaining good quality sputum from patients acutely hospitalized with suspected lower respiratory tract infection: a statistical analysis plan for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Targeted antimicrobial treatment is essential to avoid unnecessary use of broad-spectrum antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance. Targeted treatment relies on a precise microbiological diagnosis — in pneumonia, this poses a challenge as the usefulness of Gram stains and cultures is highly dependent on the quality of the sputum sample.

This study aims to examine adverse effects and quality of sputum samples obtained by expiratory techniques (forced expiratory technique and sputum induction) compared with tracheal suction. The hypothesis is that expiratory techniques are non-inferior to tracheal suction in obtaining samples from the lower respiratory tract. This statistical analysis plan (SAP) describes the study design, method, and data analysis of the trial to increase transparency, avoid reporting bias or data-driven analysis and increase the study’s reproducibility.

Method

The design is a pragmatic, non-inferiority, parallel-arm randomized controlled trial including 280 patients admitted with suspected lower respiratory infection to two emergency departments. Patients are randomized to a usual care group, where sputum samples are collected by tracheal suction or to an intervention group where sputum samples are collected by forced expiratory technique and sputum induction. The statistical analysis will follow an intention-to-treat protocol. This SAP is developed and submitted before the end of recruitment, database closure, and statistical analyses.

Discussion

The results of this study will provide valuable knowledge to clinical practice by comparing adverse effects and sputum sample quality associated with different sample methods.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04595526. Submitted on October 19, 2020

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05639-1.

Multi-centre, randomised non-inferiority trial of early treatment versus expectant management of patent ductus arteriosus in preterm infants (the BeNeDuctus trial): statistical analysis plan

Background

Controversy exists about the optimal management of a patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in preterm infants. A persistent PDA is associated with neonatal mortality and morbidity, but causality remains unproven. Although both pharmacological and/or surgical treatment are effective in PDA closure, this has not resulted in an improved neonatal outcome. In most preterm infants, a PDA will eventually close spontaneously, hence PDA treatment potentially increases the risk of iatrogenic adverse effects. Therefore, expectant management is gaining interest, even in the absence of convincing evidence to support this strategy.

Methods/design

The BeNeDuctus trial is a multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial assessing early pharmacological treatment (24–72 h postnatal age) with ibuprofen versus expectant management of PDA in preterm infants in Europe. Preterm infants with a gestational age of less than 28 weeks and an echocardiographic-confirmed PDA with a transductal diameter of > 1.5 mm are randomly allocated to early pharmacological treatment with ibuprofen or expectant management after parental informed consent.

The primary outcome measure is the composite outcome of mortality, and/or necrotizing enterocolitis Bell stage ≥ IIa, and/or bronchopulmonary dysplasia, all established at a postmenstrual age of 36 weeks. Secondary short-term outcomes are comorbidity and adverse events assessed during hospitalization and long-term neurodevelopmental outcome assessed at a corrected age of 2 years. This statistical analysis plan focusses on the short-term outcome and is written and submitted without knowledge of the data.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NTR5479. Registered on October 19, 2015, with the Dutch Trial Registry, sponsored by the United States National Library of Medicine Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02884219 (registered May 2016) and the European Clinical Trials Database EudraCT 2017-001376-28.

CRISTAL (a cluster-randomised, crossover, non-inferiority trial of aspirin compared to low molecular weight heparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hip or knee arthroplasty, a registry nested study): statistical analysis plan

BACKGROUND

This a priori statistical analysis plan describes the analysis for CRISTAL.

METHODS

CRISTAL (cluster-randomised, crossover, non-inferiority trial of aspirin compared to low molecular weight heparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hip or knee arthroplasty, a registry nested study) aims to determine whether aspirin is non-inferior to low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in preventing symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) following hip arthroplasty (HA) or knee arthroplasty (KA). The study is nested within the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. The trial was commenced in April 2019 and after an unplanned interim analysis, recruitment was stopped (December 2020), as the stopping rule was met for the primary outcome. The clusters comprised hospitals performing > 250 HA and/or KA procedures per annum, whereby all adults (> 18 years) undergoing HA or KA were recruited. Each hospital was randomised to commence with aspirin, orally, 85-150 mg daily or LMWH (enoxaparin), 40 mg, subcutaneously, daily within 24 h postoperatively, for 35 days after HA and 14 days after KA. Crossover was planned once the registration target was met for the first arm. The primary end point is symptomatic VTE within 90 days. Secondary outcomes include readmission, reoperation, major bleeding and death within 90 days, and reoperation and patient-reported pain, function and health status at 6 months. The main analyses will focus on the primary and secondary outcomes for patients undergoing elective primary total HA and KA for osteoarthritis. The analysis will use an intention-to-treat approach with cluster summary methods to compare treatment arms. As the trial stopped early, analyses will account for incomplete cluster crossover and unequal cluster sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper provides a detailed statistical analysis plan for CRISTAL.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618001879257 . Registered on 19/11/2018.

An Internet-based emotion regulation intervention versus no intervention for non-suicidal self-injury in adolescents: a statistical analysis plan for a feasibility randomised clinical trial

Background

Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) has a lifetime prevalence of 17% in adolescents in the general population and up to 74% in adolescents with psychiatric disorders. NSSI is one of the most important predictors of later suicidal behaviour and death by suicide. The TEENS feasibility trial was initiated to assess the feasibility and safety of Internet-based Emotion Regulation Individual Therapy for Adolescents (ERITA) as an add-on to treatment as usual in 13–17-year-old patients with NSSI referred to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services.

Methods

The TEENS feasibility trial is a randomised clinical trial with a parallel-group design. The trial intervention is an 11-week online therapy which is tested as an add-on to treatment as usual versus treatment as usual. The primary feasibility outcomes are the fraction of participants who (1) completed 12 weeks of follow-up interview or assessment, (2) consented to inclusion and randomisation out of all eligible participants, and (3) were compliant with the experimental intervention, assessed as completion of at least six out of eleven modules in the programme. Since this is a feasibility trial, we did not predefine a required sample size. The exploratory clinical outcome, the frequency of NSSI episodes, assessed using Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory – Youth version (DSHI-Y), at the end of intervention, is planned to be the future primary outcome in a larger pragmatic definitive randomised clinical trial. After completion of the feasibility trial, blinded data will be analysed by two independent statisticians blinded to the intervention, where ‘A’ and ‘B’ refer to the two groups. A third party will compare these reports, and discrepancies will be discussed. The statistical report with the analyses chosen for the manuscript is being tracked using a version control system, and both statistical reports will be published as a supplementary material. Based on the final statistical report, two blinded conclusions will be drawn by the steering group.

Discussion

We present a pre-defined statistical analysis plan for the TEENS feasibility trial, which limits bias, p-hacking, data-driven interpretations. This statistical analysis plan is accompanied by a pre-programmed version-controlled statistical report with simulated data, which increases transparency and reproducibility.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT04243603. Registered on 28 January 2020

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05406-2.

Baby-OSCAR: Outcome after Selective early treatment for Closure of patent ductus ARteriosus in preterm babies-a statistical analysis plan for short-term outcomes

Background

The Baby-OSCAR trial is a multi-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled parallel group trial of early treatment of large patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) with ibuprofen in extremely preterm infants. This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for the short-term health outcomes of the Baby-OSCAR trial.

Methods and design

This is a randomised controlled trial to determine if early-targeted treatment of a large PDA with parenteral ibuprofen in extremely preterm babies improves short and long-term health and economic outcomes. Infants born between 23⁺⁰ and 28⁺⁶ weeks of gestation, confirmed by echocardiography as having a large PDA (with a diameter of at least 1.5 mm and unrestricted pulsatile PDA flow pattern), with parental informed consent, were randomly allocated to receive either ibuprofen or placebo within 72 h of birth. The primary outcome is a composite of death by 36 weeks’ postmenstrual age or moderate or severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) at 36 weeks’ postmenstrual age.

Results

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics will be described by randomised group. The primary analysis will be on the modified intention to treat (ITT) population. Counts and percentages will be presented for binary and categorical variables, and mean and standard deviation or median and interquartile range will be presented for continuous variables. For binary outcomes, risk ratios and confidence intervals will be calculated using log binomial or Poisson regression with a robust variance estimator. Continuous outcomes will be analysed using linear regression models, or quantile regression models if skewed. Analyses will be adjusted for all minimisation factors where technically possible, and correlation between siblings from multiple births will be accounted for by nesting the clusters as a random effect. Both crude and adjusted effect estimates will be presented, with the primary inference based on the adjusted estimates. Ninety-five per cent confidence intervals will be used for all pre-specified outcome comparisons.

Conclusion

This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for short-term health outcomes of the trial, including the analysis principles, definitions of important outcomes, methods for primary analysis, pre-specified subgroup analysis, and secondary analysis. The plan was finalised prior to completion of short-term follow-up.

Trial registration

ISRCTN registry ISRCTN84264977. Registered on 15 September 2010.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05324-3.

Study of Peri-Articular Anaesthetic for Replacement of the Knee (SPAARK): statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of peri-articular liposomal bupivacaine plus bupivacaine hydrochloride compared with bupivacaine hydrochloride alone

Background

Up to three quarters of surgical patients receive inadequate pain relief, with 40% of patients reporting severe pain following knee replacement, which may indicate the current pain relief strategies using opiate-based analgesia cannot achieve patient satisfaction. Liposomal bupivacaine is liposome-encapsulated bupivacaine which has been reported to be effective for up to 72 h. The study of Peri-Articular Anaesthetic for Replacement of the Knee (SPAARK) trial has been designed to assess the effectiveness of peri-articular liposomal bupivacaine and bupivacaine hydrochloride compared with peri-articular bupivacaine hydrochloride alone in the management of post-operative pain following knee replacement.

Methods/design

The SPAARK trial is a multi-centre, patient-blinded, randomised controlled trial. The co-primary outcomes are post-operative recovery assessed by global QoR-40 scores at 72 h and cumulative pain VAS score from 6 to 72 h following surgery. Longer-term measures of the co-primary outcomes are collected at 6 weeks and 6 and 12 months post randomisation, together with secondary outcomes, i.e. the Oxford Knee Score, and the American Knee Society Score. Cumulative opiate use and fitness for discharge are measured up to 72 h post-surgery. The analysis approaches for the primary and secondary outcomes are described here, as are the descriptive statistics which will be reported. The full SPAARK protocol has already been published.

Results

The co-primary outcomes will be analysed using multivariate linear regression adjusting for stratification factors and other important prognostic variables, including baseline scores in the case of the QoR-40. The adjusted mean difference between the two groups together with 97.5% confidence intervals will be reported for each of the primary outcomes. Other continuous variables will be assessed using the same method. Binary outcomes will be assessed using chi-squared tests.

Discussion

The paper provides details of the planned statistical analyses for the SPAARK trial and aims to reduce the risk of outcome reporting bias from prior data knowledge. Any changes or deviations from this statistical analysis plan will be described and justified in the final study report.

Trial registration

ISRCTN54191675. Registered on 13 November 2017.

Statistical analysis plan for the Surgery for Cancer with Option of Palliative Care Expert (SCOPE) trial: a randomized controlled trial of a specialist palliative care intervention for patients undergoing surgery for cancer

BACKGROUND

The impact of specialist palliative care intervention in patients undergoing surgery for cancer has not been studied extensively. The SCOPE randomized controlled trial will investigate the effect of specialist palliative care intervention in cancer patients undergoing surgery for selected abdominal malignancies. The study protocol of the SCOPE Trial was published in December 2019.

METHODS AND DESIGN

The SCOPE Trial is a single-center, single-blind, prospective, randomized controlled trial that will investigate specialist palliative care intervention for cancer patients undergoing surgery for selected abdominal malignancies. The study plans to enroll 236 patients that will be randomized to specialist palliative care (intervention arm) and usual care (control arm) in a 1:1 ratio.

RESULTS

The primary outcome of the study is the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Trial Outcome Index (TOI) at 90 days postoperatively. Secondary outcomes of the study include the total FACT-G score at 90 days postoperatively, days alive at home without an emergency room visit within 90 days of operation, and all-cause mortality at 1 year after operation. Time frames for all outcomes will start on the day of surgery.

CONCLUSION

This manuscript serves as the formal statistical analysis plan (version 1.0) for the SCOPE randomized controlled trial. The statistical analysis plan was completed on 6 April 2021.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03436290 . Registered on 16 February 2018.

Statistical analysis plan for the COMPARE trial: a 3-arm randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of Constraint-induced Aphasia Therapy Plus and Multi-modality Aphasia Therapy to usual care in chronic post-stroke aphasia (COMPARE)

BACKGROUND

While high-quality meta-analyses have confirmed the effectiveness of aphasia therapy after stroke, there is limited evidence for the comparative effectiveness of different aphasia interventions. Two commonly used interventions, Constraint-induced Aphasia Therapy Plus (CIAT Plus) and Multi-modality Aphasia Therapy (M-MAT), are hypothesised to rely on diverse underlying neural mechanisms for recovery and may be differentially responsive to aphasia severity. COMPARE is a prospective randomised open-blinded end-point trial designed to determine whether, in people with chronic post-stroke aphasia living in the community, CIAT Plus and M-MAT provide greater therapeutic benefit compared to usual care, are differentially effective according to aphasia severity, and are cost-effective. This paper details the statistical analysis plan for the COMPARE trial developed prior to data analysis.

METHODS

Participants (n = 216) are randomised to one of three arms, CIAT Plus, M-MAT or usual care, and undertake therapy with a study trained speech pathologist in groups of three participants stratified by aphasia severity. Therapy occurs for 3 h blocks per day for 10 days across 2 weeks. The primary clinical outcome is aphasia severity as measured by the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient (WAB-R-AQ) immediately post intervention. Secondary outcomes include WAB-R-AQ at 12-week follow-up, and functional communication, discourse efficiency, multimodal communication, and health-related quality of life immediately post intervention and at 12-week follow-up.

RESULTS

Linear mixed models (LMMs) will be used to analyse differences between M-MAT and UC, and CIAT-Plus and UC on each outcome measure immediately and at 12 weeks post-intervention. The LMM for WAB-R-AQ will assess the differences in efficacy between M-MAT and CIAT-Plus. All analyses will control for baseline aphasia severity (fixed effect) and for the clustering effect of treatment groups (random effect).

DISCUSSION

This trial will provide relative effectiveness data for two common interventions for people with chronic post-stroke aphasia, and highlight possible differential effects based on aphasia severity. Together with the health economic analysis data, the results will enable more informed personalised prescription for aphasia therapy after stroke.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN 12615000618550 . Registered on 15 June 2016.