Statistical analyses of ordinal outcomes in randomised controlled trials: protocol for a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aim to assess the effect of one (or more) unproven health interventions relative to other reference interventions. RCTs sometimes use an ordinal outcome, which is an endpoint that comprises of multiple, monotonically ordered categories that are not necessarily separated by a quantifiable distance. Ordinal outcomes are appealing in clinical settings as specific disease states can represent meaningful categories that may be of clinical importance to researchers. Ordinal outcomes can also retain information and increase statistical power compared to dichotomised outcomes and can allow multiple clinical outcomes to be comprised in a single endpoint. Target parameters for ordinal outcomes in RCTs may vary depending on the nature of the research question, the modelling assumptions and the expertise of the data analyst. The aim of this scoping review is to systematically describe the use of ordinal outcomes in contemporary RCTs. Specifically, we aim to: [Formula: see text] Identify which target parameters are of interest in trials that use an ordinal outcome, and whether these parameters are explicitly defined. [Formula: see text] Describe how ordinal outcomes are analysed in RCTs to estimate a treatment effect. [Formula: see text] Describe whether RCTs that use an ordinal outcome adequately report key methodological aspects specific to the analysis of the ordinal outcome. Results from this review will outline the current state of practice of the use of ordinal outcomes in RCTs. Ways to improve the analysis and reporting of ordinal outcomes in RCTs will be discussed. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will review RCTs that are published in the top four medical journals (British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the Journal of the American Medical Association) between 1 January 2012 and 31 July 2022 that use an ordinal outcome as either a primary or a secondary outcome. The review will identify articles through a PubMed-specific search strategy. Our review will adhere to guidelines for scoping reviews as described in the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The study characteristics and details of the study design and analysis, including the target parameter(s) and statistical methods used to analyse the ordinal outcome, will be extracted from eligible studies. The screening, review and data extraction will be conducted using Covidence, a web-based tool for managing systematic reviews. The data will be summarised using descriptive statistics.

Nasal High-Flow Therapy during Neonatal Endotracheal Intubation.

BACKGROUND: Neonatal endotracheal intubation often involves more than one attempt, and oxygen desaturation is common. It is unclear whether nasal high-flow therapy, which extends the time to desaturation during elective intubation in children and adults receiving general anesthesia, can improve the likelihood of successful neonatal intubation on the first attempt. METHODS: We performed a randomized, controlled trial to compare nasal high-flow therapy with standard care (no nasal high-flow therapy or supplemental oxygen) in neonates undergoing oral endotracheal intubation at two Australian tertiary neonatal intensive care units. Randomization of intubations to the high-flow group or the standard-care group was stratified according to trial center, the use of premedication for intubation (yes or no), and postmenstrual age of the infant (≤28 or >28 weeks). The primary outcome was successful intubation on the first attempt without physiological instability (defined as an absolute decrease in the peripheral oxygen saturation of >20% from the preintubation baseline level or bradycardia with a heart rate of <100 beats per minute) in the infant. RESULTS: The primary intention-to-treat analysis included the outcomes of 251 intubations in 202 infants; 124 intubations were assigned to the high-flow group and 127 to the standard-care group. The infants had a median postmenstrual age of 27.9 weeks and a median weight of 920 g at the time of intubation. A successful intubation on the first attempt without physiological instability was achieved in 62 of 124 intubations (50.0%) in the high-flow group and in 40 of 127 intubations (31.5%) in the standard-care group (adjusted risk difference, 17.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.0 to 29.2), for a number needed to treat of 6 (95% CI, 4 to 17) for 1 infant to benefit. Successful intubation on the first attempt regardless of physiological stability was accomplished in 68.5% of the intubations in the high-flow group and in 54.3% of the intubations in the standard-care group (adjusted risk difference, 15.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.3 to 27.3). CONCLUSIONS: Among infants undergoing endotracheal intubation at two Australian tertiary neonatal intensive care units, nasal high-flow therapy during the procedure improved the likelihood of successful intubation on the first attempt without physiological instability in the infant. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12618001498280.).