Abstract
Background and Objectives Ordinal scales are widely adopted as outcome measures in neurological randomized controlled trials (RCTs). There have been extensive discussions about appropriate statistical analysis strategies of ordinal neurological outcomes. We aimed to evaluate which statistical methods have been used to test and estimate treatment effects from ordinal outcomes in recent RCTs across a range of acute neurological diseases.
Methods We searched for RCTs in five acute monophasic neurological diseases (stroke, traumatic brain injury (TBI), subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), meningitis, and Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS)) published in high-impact journals between January 1, 2015 and November 1, 2023. Trials had to report on an ordinal scale as the primary or secondary outcome. Two independent reviewers assessed whether/how investigators (1) delt with the ordinal nature of outcomes, (2) assessed and reported key assumptions,(3)utilized longitudinal measurements, (4) adjusted for prognostic variables.
Results We included 70 RCTs for treatment evaluations in stroke (n=36), TBI (n=13), SAH (n=10), meningitis (n=7), and GBS (n=4). In 46/70 (66%) trials, investigators retained the full ordering information, commonly analyzed by a proportional odds model (33/46 trials, 72%). The proportional odds assumption was not addressed in 23/33 (62%) of these trials. In 22/70 (31%) trials, the ordinal outcome was dichotomized, with notable disagreement on the cut-point within neurological diseases. In 41/70 (59%) trials, the ordinal outcome was assessed at multiple time points, while some form of longitudinal data analysis was performed in only three (7%) of these 41 studies. The time point chosen for analysis was inconsistent within neurological diseases.
Discussion The current practice of analyzing ordinal outcomes is often suboptimal in neurological trials according to modern statistical standards. Dichotomization and focus on a single arbitrary time point are still common, while more efficient analysis strategies exist. Further research needs to clarify the balance between maximizing the statistical power and assumptions made in approaches that better leverage ordinal information.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
