Cited by 29Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Improving the analysis of adverse event data in randomized controlled trials

Cornelius, Victoria R, Phillips, Rachel·2022·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Analyzing treatment harm is vital but problematic with the relatively small sample sizes afforded in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Good analysis practice for efficacy outcomes are well established but there has been minimal progress for the analysis of adverse events (AEs). In this commentary we examine four key issues for AE analysis. Namely, why harm data in RCTs is undervalued, why AE analysis is difficult, what aspects of current analysis practice are unsatisfactory, and the challenges for selection and interpretation of AEs results in publications. We discuss how the value of harm data from RCTs could be better realized by reframing the research question to one for detecting signals of adverse reactions. We align established good statistical practice to current unsatisfactory practice. We encourage use of Bayesian analyses to enable cumulative assessment of harm across trial research phases and discourage selecting AEs to report based on arbitrary rules. We propose comprehendible summaries to be based on core outcome sets, serious and pre-specified events, and events leading to discontinuation. Analysis of AEs in contemporary clinical trials needs attention to progress. In the following we have outlined immediate, mid and longer-term strategies for trialists to adopt to support a change in practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.12.023

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cornelius, V. R., & Phillips, R.
Affiliations
Imperial College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Cornelius, Victoria R
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-04
Volume
144
Pages
185-192
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4200104951
Cited by
27
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3
FWCI
3.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (DRF-2017-10-131)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
adverse events, treatment harms, randomized controlled trials, Bayesian analysis, core outcome set, serious adverse events, trial discontinuation, statistical practice
MeSH terms
Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review