Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: cohort study on trial protocols and journal publications

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the planning of subgroup analyses in protocols of randomised controlled trials and the agreement with corresponding full journal publications. DESIGN: Cohort of protocols of randomised controlled trial and subsequent full journal publications. SETTING: Six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. DATA SOURCES: 894 protocols of randomised controlled trial involving patients approved by participating research ethics committees between 2000 and 2003 and 515 subsequent full journal publications. RESULTS: Of 894 protocols of randomised controlled trials, 252 (28.2%) included one or more planned subgroup analyses. Of those, 17 (6.7%) provided a clear hypothesis for at least one subgroup analysis, 10 (4.0%) anticipated the direction of a subgroup effect, and 87 (34.5%) planned a statistical test for interaction. Industry sponsored trials more often planned subgroup analyses compared with investigator sponsored trials (195/551 (35.4%) v 57/343 (16.6%), P<0.001). Of 515 identified journal publications, 246 (47.8%) reported at least one subgroup analysis. In 81 (32.9%) of the 246 publications reporting subgroup analyses, authors stated that subgroup analyses were prespecified, but this was not supported by 28 (34.6%) corresponding protocols. In 86 publications, authors claimed a subgroup effect, but only 36 (41.9%) corresponding protocols reported a planned subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Subgroup analyses are insufficiently described in the protocols of randomised controlled trials submitted to research ethics committees, and investigators rarely specify the anticipated direction of subgroup effects. More than one third of statements in publications of randomised controlled trials about subgroup prespecification had no documentation in the corresponding protocols. Definitive judgments regarding credibility of claimed subgroup effects are not possible without access to protocols and analysis plans of randomised controlled trials.

Fluoroscopic-Guided Radial Endobronchial Ultrasound Without Guide Sheath For Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions: A Safe And Efficient Combination.

BACKGROUND: Several guidelines recommend computed tomography scans for populations with high-risk for lung cancer. The number of individuals evaluated for peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPL) will probably increase, and with it non-surgical biopsies. Associating a guidance method with a target confirmation technique has been shown to achieve the highest diagnostic yield, but the utility of bronchoscopy with radial probe endobronchial ultrasound using fluoroscopy as guidance without a guide sheath has not been reported. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of bronchoscopy with radial probe endobronchial ultrasound using fluoroscopy procedures for the investigation of PPL performed by experienced bronchoscopists with no specific previous training in this particular technique. Operator learning curves and radiological predictors were assessed for all consecutive patients examined during the first year of application of the technique. RESULTS: Fifty-one PPL were investigated. Diagnostic yield and visualization yield were 72.5 and 82.3% respectively. The diagnostic yield was 64.0% for PPL ≤20mm, and 80.8% for PPL>20mm. No false-positive results were recorded. The learning curve of all diagnostic tools showed a DY of 72.7% for the first sub-group of patients, 81.8% for the second, 72.7% for the third, and 81.8% for the last. CONCLUSION: Bronchoscopy with radial probe endobronchial ultrasound using fluoroscopy as guidance is safe and simple to perform, even without specific prior training, and diagnostic yield is high for PPL>and ≤20mm. Based on these findings, this method could be introduced as a first-line procedure for the investigation of PPL, particularly in centers with limited resources.