Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Correspondence

How to design a pre-specified statistical analysis approach to limit p-hacking in clinical trials: the Pre-SPEC framework

Authors: Brennan C. Kahan, Gordon Forbes, Suzie Cro

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Results from clinical trials can be susceptible to bias if investigators choose their analysis approach after seeing trial data, as this can allow them to perform multiple analyses and then choose the method that provides the most favourable result (commonly referred to as ‘p-hacking’). Pre-specification of the planned analysis approach is essential to help reduce such bias, as it ensures analytical methods are chosen in advance of seeing the trial data. For this reason, guidelines such as SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and ICH-E9 (International Conference for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use) require the statistical methods for a trial’s primary outcome be pre-specified in the trial protocol. However, pre-specification is only effective if done in a way that does not allow p-hacking. For example, investigators may pre-specify a certain statistical method such as multiple imputation, but give little detail on how it will be implemented. Because there are many different ways to perform multiple imputation, this approach to pre-specification is ineffective, as it still allows investigators to analyse the data in different ways before deciding on a final approach. In this article, we describe a five-point framework (the Pre-SPEC framework) for designing a pre-specified analysis approach that does not allow p-hacking. This framework was designed based on the principles in the SPIRIT and ICH-E9 guidelines and is intended to be used in conjunction with these guidelines to help investigators design the statistical analysis strategy for the trial’s primary outcome in the trial protocol.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Statistical principles for clinical trials. International conference on harmonisation E9 expert working group. Stat Med. 1999;18(15):1905–42. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Statistical principles for clinical trials. International conference on harmonisation E9 expert working group. Stat Med. 1999;18(15):1905–42.
2.
go back to reference Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG. Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols. BMJ. 2008;337:a2299.CrossRef Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG. Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols. BMJ. 2008;337:a2299.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gotzsche PC, Krleza-Jeric K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):200–7.CrossRef Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gotzsche PC, Krleza-Jeric K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):200–7.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin JA, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;346:e7586.CrossRef Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin JA, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;346:e7586.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Greenberg L, Jairath V, Pearse R, Kahan BC. Pre-specification of statistical analysis approaches in published clinical trial protocols was inadequate. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;101:53–60.CrossRef Greenberg L, Jairath V, Pearse R, Kahan BC. Pre-specification of statistical analysis approaches in published clinical trial protocols was inadequate. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;101:53–60.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Abraha I, Cherubini A, Cozzolino F, De Florio R, Luchetta ML, Rimland JM, et al. Deviation from intention to treat analysis in randomised trials and treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2015;350:h2445.CrossRef Abraha I, Cherubini A, Cozzolino F, De Florio R, Luchetta ML, Rimland JM, et al. Deviation from intention to treat analysis in randomised trials and treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2015;350:h2445.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Dwan K, Altman DG, Clarke M, Gamble C, Higgins JP, Sterne JA, et al. Evidence for the selective reporting of analyses and discrepancies in clinical trials: a systematic review of cohort studies of clinical trials. PLoS Med. 2014;11(6):e1001666.CrossRef Dwan K, Altman DG, Clarke M, Gamble C, Higgins JP, Sterne JA, et al. Evidence for the selective reporting of analyses and discrepancies in clinical trials: a systematic review of cohort studies of clinical trials. PLoS Med. 2014;11(6):e1001666.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Dworkin JD, McKeown A, Farrar JT, Gilron I, Hunsinger M, Kerns RD, et al. Deficiencies in reporting of statistical methodology in recent randomized trials of nonpharmacologic pain treatments: ACTTION systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;72:56–65.CrossRef Dworkin JD, McKeown A, Farrar JT, Gilron I, Hunsinger M, Kerns RD, et al. Deficiencies in reporting of statistical methodology in recent randomized trials of nonpharmacologic pain treatments: ACTTION systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;72:56–65.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Gamble C, Krishan A, Stocken D, Lewis S, Juszczak E, Dore C, et al. Guidelines for the content of statistical analysis plans in clinical trials. JAMA. 2017;318(23):2337–43.CrossRef Gamble C, Krishan A, Stocken D, Lewis S, Juszczak E, Dore C, et al. Guidelines for the content of statistical analysis plans in clinical trials. JAMA. 2017;318(23):2337–43.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Grant S, Booth M, Khodyakov D. Lack of pre-registered analysis plan allows unacceptable data mining for and selective reporting of consensus in Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;99:96–105. Grant S, Booth M, Khodyakov D. Lack of pre-registered analysis plan allows unacceptable data mining for and selective reporting of consensus in Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;99:96–105.
11.
go back to reference Nuesch E, Trelle S, Reichenbach S, Rutjes AW, Burgi E, Scherer M, et al. The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2009;339:b3244.CrossRef Nuesch E, Trelle S, Reichenbach S, Rutjes AW, Burgi E, Scherer M, et al. The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2009;339:b3244.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Forbes A. Many scenarios exist for selective inclusion and reporting of results in randomized trials and systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(5):524–37.CrossRef Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Forbes A. Many scenarios exist for selective inclusion and reporting of results in randomized trials and systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(5):524–37.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Porta N, Bonet C, Cobo E. Discordance between reported intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(7):663–9.CrossRef Porta N, Bonet C, Cobo E. Discordance between reported intention-to-treat and per protocol analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(7):663–9.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Saquib N, Saquib J, Ioannidis JP. Practices and impact of primary outcome adjustment in randomized controlled trials: meta-epidemiologic study. BMJ. 2013;347:f4313.CrossRef Saquib N, Saquib J, Ioannidis JP. Practices and impact of primary outcome adjustment in randomized controlled trials: meta-epidemiologic study. BMJ. 2013;347:f4313.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Group C. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. PLoS Med. 2010;7(3):e1000251.CrossRef Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Group C. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. PLoS Med. 2010;7(3):e1000251.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Morris TP, Kahan BC, White IR. Choosing sensitivity analyses for randomised trials: principles. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:11.CrossRef Morris TP, Kahan BC, White IR. Choosing sensitivity analyses for randomised trials: principles. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:11.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Goldacre B, Morton CE, DeVito NJ. Why researchers should share their analytic code. BMJ. 2019;367:l6365.CrossRef Goldacre B, Morton CE, DeVito NJ. Why researchers should share their analytic code. BMJ. 2019;367:l6365.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Freeman PR. The performance of the two-stage analysis of two-treatment, two-period crossover trials. Stat Med. 1989;8(12):1421–32.CrossRef Freeman PR. The performance of the two-stage analysis of two-treatment, two-period crossover trials. Stat Med. 1989;8(12):1421–32.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Kahan BC. Bias in randomised factorial trials. Stat Med. 2013;32(26):4540–9.CrossRef Kahan BC. Bias in randomised factorial trials. Stat Med. 2013;32(26):4540–9.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Raab GM, Day S, Sales J. How to select covariates to include in the analysis of a clinical trial. Control Clin Trials. 2000;21(4):330–42.CrossRef Raab GM, Day S, Sales J. How to select covariates to include in the analysis of a clinical trial. Control Clin Trials. 2000;21(4):330–42.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Kahan BC, Morris TP. Reporting and analysis of trials using stratified randomisation in leading medical journals: review and reanalysis. BMJ. 2012;345:e5840.CrossRef Kahan BC, Morris TP. Reporting and analysis of trials using stratified randomisation in leading medical journals: review and reanalysis. BMJ. 2012;345:e5840.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Kahan BC, Morris TP. Improper analysis of trials randomised using stratified blocks or minimisation. Stat Med. 2012;31(4):328–40.CrossRef Kahan BC, Morris TP. Improper analysis of trials randomised using stratified blocks or minimisation. Stat Med. 2012;31(4):328–40.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Wang B, Ogburn EL, Rosenblum M. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) in randomized trials: more precision and valid confidence intervals, without model assumptions. Biometrics. 2019;75(4):1391–1400. Wang B, Ogburn EL, Rosenblum M. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) in randomized trials: more precision and valid confidence intervals, without model assumptions. Biometrics. 2019;75(4):1391–1400.
25.
go back to reference Altman DG, Royston P. The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ. 2006;332(7549):1080.CrossRef Altman DG, Royston P. The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ. 2006;332(7549):1080.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Kahan BC, Ahmad T, Forbes G, Cro S. Availability and adherence to pre-specified statistical analysis approaches was low in published randomised trials. OSF (osfio/nbp8v). 2020. Kahan BC, Ahmad T, Forbes G, Cro S. Availability and adherence to pre-specified statistical analysis approaches was low in published randomised trials. OSF (osfio/nbp8v). 2020.
29.
go back to reference Spence O, Hong K, Onwuchekwa Uba R, Doshi P. Availability of study protocols for randomized trials published in high-impact medical journals: a cross-sectional analysis. Clin Trials. 2019;1740774519868310. Spence O, Hong K, Onwuchekwa Uba R, Doshi P. Availability of study protocols for randomized trials published in high-impact medical journals: a cross-sectional analysis. Clin Trials. 2019;1740774519868310.
Metadata
Title
How to design a pre-specified statistical analysis approach to limit p-hacking in clinical trials: the Pre-SPEC framework
Authors
Brennan C. Kahan
Gordon Forbes
Suzie Cro
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01706-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Medicine 1/2020 Go to the issue