Human Reproduction, Vol. 18, No. 5, 1000-1004,
May 2003
© 2003 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
Common statistical errors in the design and analysis of subfertility trials
1 Biostatistics Group, University of Manchester and 2 Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust, R&D Support Unit, Hope Hospital, Stott Lane, Salford M6 8HD, UK
3 To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: andy.vail{at}man.ac.uk
BACKGROUND: The quality of clinical trials has received increasing attention with the growth of evidence-based medicine and systematic reviews. We aimed to identify whether errors and omissions commonly encountered when undertaking Cochrane reviews in this field are still passing peer review. METHODS: We undertook a review of trials published in 2001 by two major journals. We selected from Medline only trials in which authors compared pregnancy rates under two interventions by allocating women to different groups. RESULTS: We identified 39 trials meeting our criteria. Six trials were fatally flawed by design, either by inappropriate use of a cross-over design or by systematic allocation described by the authors as ‘random’. Only six reports claimed to apply the intention-to-treat principle, and the principle was misunderstood by four of these. Only five trials reported live birth rates sufficiently to allow valid meta-analysis. Most trials (82%) included at least one ‘unit of analysis’ error. CONCLUSIONS: We selected simple trials from respected journals, assuming that our sample would represent trials of highest methodological quality in the field. Nevertheless, the standards of design, analysis and reporting of many subfertility trials are not sufficient to allow reliable interpretation of results, or inclusion in meta-analyses.
Key words: statistics/subfertility/systematic review
* This author is a member of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Review Group.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  G. Ricci, L. Lo Bello, and K. Skerk RCT of real versus placebo acupuncture in IVF Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2009; 24(7): 1769 - 1770. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Maheshwari, G. Scotland, J. Bell, A. McTavish, M. Hamilton, and S. Bhattacharya The direct health services costs of providing assisted reproduction services in overweight or obese women: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2009; 24(3): 633 - 639. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M.J. Pelinck, H.M. Knol, N.E.A. Vogel, E.G.J.M. Arts, A.H.M. Simons, M.J. Heineman, and A. Hoek Cumulative pregnancy rates after sequential treatment with modified natural cycle IVF followed by IVF with controlled ovarian stimulation Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2008; 23(8): 1808 - 1814. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Manheimer, G. Zhang, L. Udoff, A. Haramati, P. Langenberg, B. M Berman, and L. M Bouter Effects of acupuncture on rates of pregnancy and live birth among women undergoing in vitro fertilisation: systematic review and meta-analysis BMJ, March 8, 2008; 336(7643): 545 - 549. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Polinder, E.M.E.W. Heijnen, N.S. Macklon, J.D.F. Habbema, B.J.C.M. Fauser, and M.J.C. Eijkemans Cost-effectiveness of a mild compared with a standard strategy for IVF: a randomized comparison using cumulative term live birth as the primary endpoint Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2008; 23(2): 316 - 323. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Munne, J. Cohen, J. L. Simpson, L. J. Wilton, A. H. Handyside, A. R. Thornhill, S. Mastenbroek, F. van der Veen, and S. Repping In Vitro Fertilization with Preimplantation Genetic Screening N. Engl. J. Med., October 25, 2007; 357(17): 1769 - 1771. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Maheshwari, L. Stofberg, and S. Bhattacharya Effect of overweight and obesity on assisted reproductive technology a systematic review Hum. Reprod. Update, September 1, 2007; 13(5): 433 - 444. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M.J. Pelinck, N.E.A. Vogel, E.G.J.M. Arts, A.H.M. Simons, M.J. Heineman, and A. Hoek Cumulative pregnancy rates after a maximum of nine cycles of modified natural cycle IVF and analysis of patient drop-out: a cohort study Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2007; 22(9): 2463 - 2470. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. N. Andersen, P. Devroey, J.-C. Arce, and for the MERIT Group Clinical outcome following stimulation with highly purified hMG or recombinant FSH in patients undergoing IVF: a randomized assessor-blind controlled trial Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2006; 21(12): 3217 - 3227. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Dias, R. McNamee, and A. Vail Evidence of improving quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in subfertility Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2006; 21(10): 2617 - 2627. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M.J.C. Eijkemans, E.M.E.W. Heijnen, C. de Klerk, J.D.F. Habbema, and B.C.J.M. Fauser Comparison of different treatment strategies in IVF with cumulative live birth over a given period of time as the primary end-point: methodological considerations on a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2006; 21(2): 344 - 351. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Mastenbroek, P. M.M.Bossuyt, M. J. Heineman, S. Repping, and F. van der Veen Comment 1 on Staessen et al. (2004). Design and analysis of a randomized controlled trial studying preimplantation genetic screening Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2005; 20(8): 2362 - 2363. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.-C. Arce, A. Nyboe Andersen, and J. Collins Resolving methodological and clinical issues in the design of efficacy trials in assisted reproductive technologies: a mini-review Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2005; 20(7): 1757 - 1771. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Z. Steiner, M. Terplan, and R. J. Paulson Comparison of tamoxifen and clomiphene citrate for ovulation induction: a meta-analysis Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2005; 20(6): 1511 - 1515. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G.M. Buck Louis, E.F. Schisterman, V.M. Dukic, and L.A. Schieve Research hurdles complicating the analysis of infertility treatment and child health Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2005; 20(1): 12 - 18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Bhattacharya and A. Templeton What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: Redefining success in the context of elective single embryo transfer: evidence, intuition and financial reality Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2004; 19(9): 1939 - 1942. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E.M.E.W. Heijnen, N.S. Macklon, and B.C.J.M. Fauser What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: The next step to improving outcomes of IVF: consider the whole treatment Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2004; 19(9): 1936 - 1938. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D.A. Blake, M. Proctor, and N.P. Johnson The merits of blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer: a Cochrane review Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2004; 19(4): 795 - 807. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. P. Dickey, B. M. Sartor, and R. Pyrzak What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction?: No single outcome measure is satisfactory when evaluating success in assisted reproduction; both twin births and singleton births should be counted as successes Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2004; 19(4): 783 - 787. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D.H. Barlow A time for consensus and consistency of reporting in clinical studies and the importance of new basic research Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2004; 19(1): 1 - 2. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. P. Dickey Clinical as well as statistical knowledge is needed when determining how subfertility trials are analysed Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2003; 18(12): 2495 - 2496. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Vail and L. Gardener Reply Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2003; 18(12): 2496 - 2497. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. H. Barlow The design, publication and interpretation of research in Subfertility Medicine: uncomfortable issues and challenges to be faced Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2003; 18(5): 899 - 901. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Daya Pitfalls in the design and analysis of efficacy trials in subfertility: Associate editor's commentary: on the article 'Common statistical errors in the design and analysis of subfertility trials' by A.Vail and E.Gardner. Hum. Reprod., May 1, 2003; 18(5): 1005 - 1009. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|