Automated detection of over- and under-dispersion in baseline tables in randomised controlled trials
1Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation & Centre for Healthcare Transformation, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, 4059, Australia.
Abstract:
Background: Papers describing the results of a randomised trial should include a baseline table that compares the characteristics of randomised groups. Researchers who fraudulently generate trials often unwittingly create baseline tables that are implausibly similar (under-dispersed) or have large differences between groups (over-dispersed). I aimed to create an automated algorithm to screen for under- and over-dispersion in the baseline tables of randomised trials. Methods: Using a cross-sectional study I examined 2,245 randomised controlled trials published in health and medical journals on PubMed Central. I estimated the probability that a trial's baseline summary statistics were under- or over-dispersed using a Bayesian model that examined the distribution of t-statistics for the between-group differences, and compared this with an expected distribution without dispersion. I used a simulation study to test the ability of the model to find under- or over-dispersion and compared its performance with an existing test of dispersion based on a uniform test of p-values. My model combined categorical and continuous summary statistics, whereas the uniform test used only continuous statistics. Results: The algorithm had a relatively good accuracy for extracting the data from baseline tables, matching well on the size of the tables and sample size. Using t-statistics in the Bayesian model out-performed the uniform test of p-values, which had many false positives for skewed, categorical and rounded data that were not under- or over-dispersed. For trials published on PubMed Central, some tables appeared under- or over-dispersed because they had an atypical presentation or had reporting errors. Some trials flagged as under-dispersed had groups with strikingly similar summary statistics. Conclusions: Automated screening for fraud of all submitted trials is challenging due to the widely varying presentation of baseline tables. The Bayesian model could be useful in targeted checks of suspected trials or authors.
More Related Videos
12:22The Use of Reverse Phase Protein Arrays RPPA to Explore Protein Expression Variation within Individual Renal Cell Cancers
Published on: January 22, 2013
10:50Detection and Quantification of Plasmodium falciparum in Aqueous Red Blood Cells by Attenuated Total Reflection Infrared Spectroscopy and Multivariate Data Analysis
Published on: November 2, 2018
Related Concept Videos
Blinding
Regression Toward the Mean
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...
Blind Procedures
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Difference from Background: Limit of Detection
The LOD indicates the presence or absence...
