Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
U.S. flag
An official website of the United States government
Veterans Benefits and Health Care About VA Find a VA Location

VA Health Systems Research

Go to the VA ORD website
Go to the QUERI website

HSR&D Citation Abstract

Search | Search by Center | Search by Source | Keywords in Title

Deficiencies in reporting of statistical methodology in recent randomized trials of nonpharmacologic pain treatments: ACTTION systematic review.

Dworkin JD, McKeown A, Farrar JT, Gilron I, Hunsinger M, Kerns RD, McDermott MP, Rappaport BA, Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Gewandter JS. Deficiencies in reporting of statistical methodology in recent randomized trials of nonpharmacologic pain treatments: ACTTION systematic review. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2016 Apr 1; 72:56-65.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions


Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of statistical methods in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), including identification of primary analyses, missing data accommodation, and multiplicity adjustment, in studies of nonpharmacologic, noninterventional pain treatments (e.g., physical therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, acupuncture, and massage). STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of 101 articles reporting RCTs of pain treatments that were published between January 2006 and June 2013 in the European Journal of Pain, the Journal of Pain, and Pain. SETTING: Systematic review. RESULTS: Sixty-two percent of studies identified a primary outcome variable, 46% identified a primary analysis, and of those with multiple primary analyses, only 21% adjusted for multiplicity. Slightly over half (55%) of studies reported using at least one method to accommodate missing data. Only four studies reported prespecifying at least one of these four study methods. CONCLUSION: This review identified deficiencies in the reporting of primary analyses and methods to adjust for multiplicity and accommodate missing data in articles disseminating results of nonpharmacologic, noninterventional trials. Investigators should be encouraged to indicate whether their analyses were prespecified and to clearly and completely report statistical methods in clinical trial publications to maximize the interpretability of trial results.




Questions about the HSR website? Email the Web Team

Any health information on this website is strictly for informational purposes and is not intended as medical advice. It should not be used to diagnose or treat any condition.