Statistical methods for the analysis of adverse event data in randomised controlled trials: a scoping review and taxonomy

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Nov 30;20(1):288. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01167-9.

Abstract

Background: Statistical methods for the analysis of harm outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are rarely used, and there is a reliance on simple approaches to display information such as in frequency tables. We aimed to identify whether any statistical methods had been specifically developed to analyse prespecified secondary harm outcomes and non-specific emerging adverse events (AEs).

Methods: A scoping review was undertaken to identify articles that proposed original methods or the original application of existing methods for the analysis of AEs that aimed to detect potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in phase II-IV parallel controlled group trials. Methods where harm outcomes were the (co)-primary outcome were excluded. Information was extracted on methodological characteristics such as: whether the method required the event to be prespecified or could be used to screen emerging events; and whether it was applied to individual events or the overall AE profile. Each statistical method was appraised and a taxonomy was developed for classification.

Results: Forty-four eligible articles proposing 73 individual methods were included. A taxonomy was developed and articles were categorised as: visual summary methods (8 articles proposing 20 methods); hypothesis testing methods (11 articles proposing 16 methods); estimation methods (15 articles proposing 24 methods); or methods that provide decision-making probabilities (10 articles proposing 13 methods). Methods were further classified according to whether they required a prespecified event (9 articles proposing 12 methods), or could be applied to emerging events (35 articles proposing 61 methods); and if they were (group) sequential methods (10 articles proposing 12 methods) or methods to perform final/one analyses (34 articles proposing 61 methods).

Conclusions: This review highlighted that a broad range of methods exist for AE analysis. Immediate implementation of some of these could lead to improved inference for AE data in RCTs. For example, a well-designed graphic can be an effective means to communicate complex AE data and methods appropriate for counts, time-to-event data and that avoid dichotomising continuous outcomes can improve efficiencies in analysis. Previous research has shown that adoption of such methods in the scientific press is limited and that strategies to support change are needed.

Trial registration: PROSPERO registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=97442.

Keywords: Adverse events, harms, adverse drug reactions; Investigational drug; Methodological review; Randomised controlled trials; Scoping review; Signal detection.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Review

MeSH terms

  • Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions* / epidemiology
  • Humans
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Research Design