| Literature DB >> 31988195 |
Anders Kehlet Nørskov1, Theis Lange2,3, Emil Eik Nielsen4,5, Christian Gluud4, Per Winkel4, Jan Beyersmann6, Jacobo de Uña-Álvarez7, Valter Torri8, Laurent Billot9, Hein Putter10, Jørn Wetterslev4, Lehana Thabane11, Janus Christian Jakobsen4,5.
Abstract
When analysing and presenting results of randomised clinical trials, trialists rarely report if or how underlying statistical assumptions were validated. To avoid data-driven biased trial results, it should be common practice to prospectively describe the assessments of underlying assumptions. In existing literature, there is no consensus on how trialists should assess and report underlying assumptions for the analyses of randomised clinical trials. With this study, we developed suggestions on how to test and validate underlying assumptions behind logistic regression, linear regression, and Cox regression when analysing results of randomised clinical trials.Two investigators compiled an initial draftbased on a review of the literature. Experienced statisticians and trialists from eight different research centres and trial units then participated in a anonymised consensus process, where we reached agreement on the suggestions presented in this paper.This paper provides detailed suggestions on 1) which underlying statistical assumptions behind logistic regression, multiple linear regression and Cox regression each should be assessed; 2) how these underlying assumptions may be assessed; and 3) what to do if these assumptions are violated.We believe that the validity of randomised clinical trial results will increase if our recommendations for assessing and dealing with violations of the underlying statistical assumptions are followed. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Entities:
Keywords: epidemiology; statistics & research methods
Year: 2020 PMID: 31988195 DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111268
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Evid Based Med ISSN: 2515-446X