IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0164275.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Outcomes Definitions and Statistical Tests in Oncology Studies: A Systematic Review of the Reporting Consistency

Author

Listed:
  • Romain Rivoirard
  • Vianney Duplay
  • Mathieu Oriol
  • Fabien Tinquaut
  • Franck Chauvin
  • Nicolas Magne
  • Aurelie Bourmaud

Abstract

Background: Quality of reporting for Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) in oncology was analyzed in several systematic reviews, but, in this setting, there is paucity of data for the outcomes definitions and consistency of reporting for statistical tests in RCTs and Observational Studies (OBS). The objective of this review was to describe those two reporting aspects, for OBS and RCTs in oncology. Methods: From a list of 19 medical journals, three were retained for analysis, after a random selection: British Medical Journal (BMJ), Annals of Oncology (AoO) and British Journal of Cancer (BJC). All original articles published between March 2009 and March 2014 were screened. Only studies whose main outcome was accompanied by a corresponding statistical test were included in the analysis. Studies based on censored data were excluded. Primary outcome was to assess quality of reporting for description of primary outcome measure in RCTs and of variables of interest in OBS. A logistic regression was performed to identify covariates of studies potentially associated with concordance of tests between Methods and Results parts. Results: 826 studies were included in the review, and 698 were OBS. Variables were described in Methods section for all OBS studies and primary endpoint was clearly detailed in Methods section for 109 RCTs (85.2%). 295 OBS (42.2%) and 43 RCTs (33.6%) had perfect agreement for reported statistical test between Methods and Results parts. In multivariable analysis, variable "number of included patients in study" was associated with test consistency: aOR (adjusted Odds Ratio) for third group compared to first group was equal to: aOR Grp3 = 0.52 [0.31–0.89] (P value = 0.009). Conclusion: Variables in OBS and primary endpoint in RCTs are reported and described with a high frequency. However, statistical tests consistency between methods and Results sections of OBS is not always noted. Therefore, we encourage authors and peer reviewers to verify consistency of statistical tests in oncology studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Romain Rivoirard & Vianney Duplay & Mathieu Oriol & Fabien Tinquaut & Franck Chauvin & Nicolas Magne & Aurelie Bourmaud, 2016. "Outcomes Definitions and Statistical Tests in Oncology Studies: A Systematic Review of the Reporting Consistency," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-13, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0164275
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164275
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164275
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0164275&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0164275?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0164275. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.