Design and analysis of group-randomized trials in cancer: A review of current practices

Abstract

<p class="first" id="P2">The purpose of this paper is to summarize current practices for the design and analysis of group-randomized trials involving cancer-related risk factors or outcomes and to offer recommendations to improve future trials. </p><p id="P3">We searched for group-randomized trials involving cancer-related risk factors or outcomes that were published or online in peer-reviewed journals in 2011–15. During 2016–17, in Bethesda MD, we reviewed 123 articles from 76 journals to characterize their design and their methods for sample size estimation and data analysis. </p><p id="P4">Only 66 (53.7%) of the articles reported appropriate methods for sample size estimation. Only 63 (51.2%) reported exclusively appropriate methods for analysis. </p><p id="P5">These findings suggest that many investigators do not adequately attend to the methodological challenges inherent in group-randomized trials. These practices can lead to underpowered studies, to an inflated type 1 error rate, and to inferences that mislead readers. Investigators should work with biostatisticians or other methodologists familiar with these issues. Funders and editors should ensure careful methodological review of applications and manuscripts. Reviewers should ensure that studies are properly planned and analyzed. These steps are needed to improve the rigor and reproducibility of group-randomized trials. </p><p id="P6">The Office of Disease Prevention (ODP) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has taken several steps to address these issues. ODP offers an online course on the design and analysis of group-randomized trials. ODP is working to increase the number of methodologists who serve on grant review panels. ODP has developed standard language for the Application Guide and the Review Criteria to draw investigators’ attention to these issues. Finally, ODP has created a new Research Methods Resources website to help investigators, reviewers, and NIH staff better understand these issues. </p>