A comparison of methods to adjust for continuous covariates in the analysis of randomised trials. Issue 1 (December 2016)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- A comparison of methods to adjust for continuous covariates in the analysis of randomised trials. Issue 1 (December 2016)
- Main Title:
- A comparison of methods to adjust for continuous covariates in the analysis of randomised trials
- Authors:
- Kahan, Brennan
Rushton, Helen
Morris, Tim
Daniel, Rhian - Abstract:
- Abstract Background Although covariate adjustment in the analysis of randomised trials can be beneficial, adjustment for continuous covariates is complicated by the fact that the association between covariate and outcome must be specified. Misspecification of this association can lead to reduced power, and potentially incorrect conclusions regarding treatment efficacy. Methods We compared several methods of adjustment to determine which is best when the association between covariate and outcome is unknown. We assessed (a) dichotomisation or categorisation; (b) assuming a linear association with outcome; (c) using fractional polynomials with one (FP1) or two (FP2) polynomial terms; and (d) using restricted cubic splines with 3 or 5 knots. We evaluated each method using simulation and through a re-analysis of trial datasets. Results Methods which kept covariates as continuous typically had higher power than methods which used categorisation. Dichotomisation, categorisation, and assuming a linear association all led to large reductions in power when the true association was non-linear. FP2 models and restricted cubic splines with 3 or 5 knots performed best overall. Conclusions For the analysis of randomised trials we recommend (1) adjusting for continuous covariates even if their association with outcome is unknown; (2) keeping covariates as continuous; and (3) using fractional polynomials with two polynomial terms or restricted cubic splines with 3 to 5 knots when a linearAbstract Background Although covariate adjustment in the analysis of randomised trials can be beneficial, adjustment for continuous covariates is complicated by the fact that the association between covariate and outcome must be specified. Misspecification of this association can lead to reduced power, and potentially incorrect conclusions regarding treatment efficacy. Methods We compared several methods of adjustment to determine which is best when the association between covariate and outcome is unknown. We assessed (a) dichotomisation or categorisation; (b) assuming a linear association with outcome; (c) using fractional polynomials with one (FP1) or two (FP2) polynomial terms; and (d) using restricted cubic splines with 3 or 5 knots. We evaluated each method using simulation and through a re-analysis of trial datasets. Results Methods which kept covariates as continuous typically had higher power than methods which used categorisation. Dichotomisation, categorisation, and assuming a linear association all led to large reductions in power when the true association was non-linear. FP2 models and restricted cubic splines with 3 or 5 knots performed best overall. Conclusions For the analysis of randomised trials we recommend (1) adjusting for continuous covariates even if their association with outcome is unknown; (2) keeping covariates as continuous; and (3) using fractional polynomials with two polynomial terms or restricted cubic splines with 3 to 5 knots when a linear association is in doubt. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- BMC medical research methodology. Volume 16:Issue 1(2016)
- Journal:
- BMC medical research methodology
- Issue:
- Volume 16:Issue 1(2016)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 16, Issue 1 (2016)
- Year:
- 2016
- Volume:
- 16
- Issue:
- 1
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2016-0016-0001-0000
- Page Start:
- 1
- Page End:
- 10
- Publication Date:
- 2016-12
- Subjects:
- Randomised controlled trial -- Covariate adjustment -- Continuous variables -- Fractional polynomials -- Restricted cubic splines
Medicine -- Research -- Methodology -- Periodicals
610.72 - Journal URLs:
- http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcmedresmethodol/ ↗
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/tocrender.fcgi?journal=43 ↗
http://link.springer.com/ ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1186/s12874-016-0141-3 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 1471-2288
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library STI - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 10045.xml