T h e ne w e ngl a nd jou r na l o f m e dicine n engl j med 369;23 nejm.org december 5, 2013

BackgroundMissing data may seriously compromise inferences from randomised clinical trials, especially if missing data are not handled appropriately. The potential bias due to missing data depends on the mechanism causing the data to be missing, and the analytical methods applied to amend the missingness. Therefore, the analysis of trial data with missing values requires careful planning and attention.MethodsThe authors had several meetings and discussions considering optimal ways of handling missing data to minimise the bias potential. We also searched PubMed (key words: missing data; randomi*; statistical analysis) and reference lists of known studies for papers (theoretical papers; empirical studies; simulation studies; etc.) on how to deal with missing data when analysing randomised clinical trials.ResultsHandling missing data is an important, yet difficult and complex task when analysing results of randomised clinical trials. We consider how to optimise the handling of missing data during the planning stage of a randomised clinical trial and recommend analytical approaches which may prevent bias caused by unavoidable missing data. We consider the strengths and limitations of using of best-worst and worst-best sensitivity analyses, multiple imputation, and full information maximum likelihood. We also present practical flowcharts on how to deal with missing data and an overview of the steps that always need to be considered during the analysis stage of a trial.ConclusionsWe present a practical guide and flowcharts describing when and how multiple imputation should be used to handle missing data in randomised clinical.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-017-0442-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patients with severe sepsis assigned to fluid resuscitation with HES 130/0.42 had an increased risk of death at day 90 and were more likely to require renal-replacement therapy, as compared with those receiving Ringer's acetate. (Funded by the Danish Research Council and others; 6S ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00962156.).

BackgroundThresholds for statistical significance when assessing meta-analysis results are being insufficiently demonstrated by traditional 95% confidence intervals and P-values. Assessment of intervention effects in systematic reviews with meta-analysis deserves greater rigour.MethodsMethodologies for assessing statistical and clinical significance of intervention effects in systematic reviews were considered. Balancing simplicity and comprehensiveness, an operational procedure was developed, based mainly on The Cochrane Collaboration methodology and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines.ResultsWe propose an eight-step procedure for better validation of meta-analytic results in systematic reviews (1) Obtain the 95% confidence intervals and the P-values from both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses and report the most conservative results as the main results. (2) Explore the reasons behind substantial statistical heterogeneity using subgroup and sensitivity analyses (see step 6). (3) To take account of problems with multiplicity adjust the thresholds for significance according to the number of primary outcomes. (4) Calculate required information sizes (≈ the a priori required number of participants for a meta-analysis to be conclusive) for all outcomes and analyse each outcome with trial sequential analysis. Report whether the trial sequential monitoring boundaries for benefit, harm, or futility are crossed. (5) Calculate Bayes factors for all primary outcomes. (6) Use subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses to assess the potential impact of bias on the review results. (7) Assess the risk of publication bias. (8) Assess the clinical significance of the statistically significant review results.ConclusionsIf followed, the proposed eight-step procedure will increase the validity of assessments of intervention effects in systematic reviews of randomised clinical trials.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-120) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Among patients with septic shock, mortality at 90 days and rates of ischemic events and use of life support were similar among those assigned to blood transfusion at a higher hemoglobin threshold and those assigned to blood transfusion at a lower threshold; the latter group received fewer transfusions. (Funded by the Danish Strategic Research Council and others; TRISS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01485315.).

Less invasive excavation methods have been suggested for deep caries lesions. We tested the effects of stepwise vs. direct complete excavation, 1 yr after the procedure had been carried out, in 314 adults (from six centres) who had received treatment of a tooth with deep caries. The teeth had caries lesions involving 75% or more of the dentin and were centrally randomized to stepwise or direct complete excavation. Stepwise excavation resulted in fewer pulp exposures compared with direct complete excavation [difference: 11.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.2; 21.3)]. At 1 yr of follow-up, there was a statistically significantly higher success rate with stepwise excavation, with success being defined as an unexposed pulp with sustained pulp vitality without apical radiolucency [difference: 11.7%, 95% CI (0.5; 22.5)]. In a subsequent nested trial, 58 patients with exposed pulps were randomized to direct capping or partial pulpotomy. We found no significant difference in pulp vitality without apical radiolucency between the two capping procedures after more than 1 yr [31.8% and 34.5%; difference: 2.7%, 95% CI (-22.7; 26.6)]. In conclusion, stepwise excavation decreases the risk of pulp exposure compared with direct complete excavation. In view of the poor prognosis of vital pulp treatment, a stepwise excavation approach for managing deep caries lesions is recommended.

NCT02079402.

Objective To determine if it is possible to stabilise the cerebral oxygenation of extremely preterm infants monitored by cerebral near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) oximetry.Design Phase II randomised, single blinded, parallel clinical trial.Setting Eight tertiary neonatal intensive care units in eight European countries. Participants 166 extremely preterm infants born before 28 weeks of gestation: 86 were randomised to cerebral NIRS monitoring and 80 to blinded NIRS monitoring. The only exclusion criterion was a decision not to provide life support.Interventions Monitoring of cerebral oxygenation using NIRS in combination with a dedicated treatment guideline during the first 72 hours of life (experimental) compared with blinded NIRS oxygenation monitoring with standard care (control). Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was the time spent outside the target range of 55-85% for cerebral oxygenation multiplied by the mean absolute deviation, expressed in %hours (burden of hypoxia and hyperoxia). One hour with an oxygenation of 50% gives 5%hours of hypoxia. Secondary outcomes were all cause mortality at term equivalent age and a brain injury score assessed by cerebral ultrasonography.Randomisation Allocation sequence 1:1 with block sizes 4 and 6 in random order concealed for the investigators. The allocation was stratified for gestational age (<26 weeks or ≥26 weeks).Blinding Cerebral oxygenation measurements were blinded in the control group. All outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. 17.4-171.3) %hours in the control group (P=0.0012). The median burden of hyperoxia was similar between the groups: 1.2 (interquartile range 0.3-9.6) %hours in the experimental group compared with 1.1 (0.1-23.4) %hours in the control group (P=0.98). We found no statistically significant differences between the two groups at term corrected age. No severe adverse reactions were associated with the device.Conclusions Cerebral oxygenation was stabilised in extremely preterm infants using a dedicated treatment guideline in combination with cerebral NIRS monitoring.Trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov NCT01590316.