Analysis and Reporting of Factorial Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Although factorial trials have become common, standards for the analysis and reporting of such trials have not been established and, despite concerns about the possibility of unrecognized interactions between therapies in factorial trials, the magnitude of this potential problem is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine the rationale, methods, and analysis of randomized factorial trials. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register using the terms factorial, interaction, 2 x 2, 2 by 2, and incremental to identify factorial randomized trials published from January 2000 to July 2002. To identify trials missed by the electronic search, we performed a hand search of English-language trials in a defined topic area (using the term myocardial ischemia [exp]) listed in MEDLINE (1966-2002), EMBASE (1980-2002), and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, as well as all trials in any topic area published in December 2000, excluding trials reporting only continuous surrogate end points. The final set of 33 eligible publications described 29 unique trials. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently identified factorial trials, generated a list of items affecting validity of results, and abstracted these items from each trial. DATA SYNTHESIS: The sensitivity of electronic searching for identifying factorial trials was 76%. Our 3-pronged search strategy identified 44 factorial trials with clinically important binary outcomes: 36 (82%) were done for reasons of efficiency (testing 2 interventions in the same patient population), and 8 (18%) were done to assess the incremental benefits of combining the 2 treatments. All but 1 of the trials reported treatment effects by comparing all patients who received treatment A (ie, those receiving either A alone or both A and B) vs all those not receiving treatment A (ie, those receiving either B alone or neither A nor B). Twenty-nine of the 44 trials (66%) reported the data from each of the treatment groups separately; 26 trials (59%) reported testing for interactions between the treatments. Only 2 of 31 (6%) comparisons demonstrated a statistically significant interaction between the 2 treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate interpretation of factorial trials depends on the transparent reporting of data for each treatment cell. Despite concerns about unrecognized interactions, our findings suggest that investigators are appropriately restricting their use of the factorial design to those situations in which 2 (or more) treatments do not have the potential for substantive interaction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.487 | 0.831 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.034 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".