Systematic review and simulation study of ignoring clustered data in surgical trials. BJS 2018; 105: 182-191.
Published: 5th February 2018
Authors: S. Dell‐Kuster, R. A. Droeser, J. Schäfer, V. Gloy, H. Ewald, S. Schandelmaier et al.
Multiple surgical procedures in a single patient are relatively common and lead to dependent (clustered) data. This dependency needs to be accounted for in study design and data analysis. A systematic review was performed to assess how clustered data were handled in inguinal hernia trials. The impact of ignoring clustered data was estimated using simulations.
PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were reviewed systematically for RCTs published between 2004 and 2013, including patients undergoing unilateral or bilateral inguinal hernia repair. Study characteristics determining the appropriateness of handling clustered data were extracted. Using simulations, various statistical methods accounting for clustered data were compared with an analysis ignoring clustering by assuming 100 hernias, with a varying percentage of patients having bilateral hernias.
Of the 50 eligible trials including patients with bilateral hernias, 20 (40 per cent) did not provide information on how they dealt with clustered data and 18 (36 per cent) avoided clustering by assessing the outcome by patient and not by hernia. None of the remaining 12 trials (24 per cent) considered clustering in the design or analysis. In the simulations, ignoring clustering led to an increased type I error rate of up to 12 per cent and to a loss in power of up to 15 per cent, depending on whether the patient or the hernia was the randomization unit.
Clustering was rarely considered in inguinal hernia trials. The simulations underline the importance of considering clustering as part of the statistical analysis to avoid false‐positive and false‐negative results, and hence inappropriate study conclusions.Full text
You may also be interested in
Meta‐analysis comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.
Authors: E. Versteijne, J. A. Vogel, M. G. Besselink, O. R. C. Busch, J. W. Wilmink, J. G. Daams et al.
Notes: Improved survival with neoadjuvant
Prognostic significance of gross extrathyroidal extension invading only strap muscles in differentiated thyroid carcinoma.
Authors: S. Y. Park, H. I. Kim, J.‐H. Kim, J. S. Kim, Y. L. Oh, S. W. Kim et al.
Notes: None for survival
Authors: M. Almquist, K. Ivarsson, E. Nordenström, A. Bergenfelz
Notes: Higher than expected
Authors: F. P. Prete, T. Abdel‐Aziz, C. Morkane, C. Brain, T. R. Kurzawinski, P. Hindmarsh et al.
Notes: Centralization needed
Authors: M. Mansourati, V. Kumar, M. Khajanchi, M. L. Saha, S. Dharap, R. Seger et al.
Notes: High burden of late mortality
Meta‐analysis evaluating music interventions for anxiety and pain in surgery. BJS 2018; 105: 773-783.
Authors: A. Y. R. Kühlmann, A. de Rooij, L. F. Kroese, M. van Dijk, M. G. M. Hunink, J. Jeekel et al.
Authors: A. L. van den Boom, E. M. L. de Wijkerslooth, K. A. L. Mauff, I. Dawson, C. C. van Rossem, B. R. Toorenvliet et al.
Development and evaluation of a patient‐centred measurement tool for surgeons’ non‐technical skills. BJS 2018; 105: 876-884.
Authors: J. Yule, K. Hill, S. Yule
Notes: Valid and reliable
Comparison of chlorhexidine–isopropanol with isopropanol skin antisepsis for prevention of surgical‐site infection after abdominal surgery. BJS 2018; 105: 893-899.
Authors: J. C. Harnoss, O. Assadian, A. Kramer, P. Probst, C. Müller‐Lantzsch, L. Scheerer et al.
Notes: Chlorhexidine better
Construct and criterion validity testing of the Non‐Technical Skills for Surgeons (NOTSS) behaviour assessment tool using videos of simulated operations. BJS 2018; 105: 719-727.
Authors: S. Yule, A. Gupta, D. Gazarian, A. Geraghty, D. S. Smink, J. Beard et al.
Notes: Useful for research and education